JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)January 25, 2017

A- de 2017

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado

✓Claimant Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo

01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

Impedimento De Magistrado
  • Procede, por causales de amistad íntima y haber manifestado su opinión sobre el asunto materia del proceso
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Con el presente auto la Sala Plena de la Corporación declara que en el proceso de tutela de la referencia, promovido por el doctor Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub contra el Senado de la República, el magistrado Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo se encuentra incurso en las causales de impedimento establecidas en los numerales 4 y 5 del artículo 56 de la Ley 906 de 2004.

De manera consecuente, acepta el impedimento formulado y se dispone separar al precitado Magistrado del conocimiento del proceso de tutela mencionado.

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

See the operative part (21 points)
  1. PRIMERO. DECLARAR que en el proceso de tutela T-5.912.640 promovido por Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub contra el Senado de la Republica, el magistrado Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo se encuentra incurso en las causales de impedimento establecidas en los numerales 4o y 5o del articulo 56 de la Ley 906 de 2004, y en consecuencia se ACEPTA el impedimento formulado.
  2. SEGUNDO. SEPARAR al magistrado Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo del conocimiento del proceso correspondiente a la accion de tutela cuyo impedimento se acepta en los terminos de esta providencia.
  3. TERCERO. Por Secretaria General de esta Corporacion, REMITIR el expediente T-5.912.640 al despacho de la magistrada Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado, a efectos de que elabore la correspondiente ponencia.
  4. CUARTO. Contra esta decision no procede ningun recurso.
  5. MARIA VICTORIA CALLE CORREA
  6. Presidenta
  7. LUIS GUILLERMO GUERRERO PEREZ
  8. Magistrado
  9. ALEJANDRO LINARES CANTILLO
  10. Magistrado
  11. GLORIA STELLA ORTIZ DELGADO
  12. Magistrada
  13. JORGE IVAN PALACIO PALACIO
  14. Magistrado
  15. AQUILES ARRIETA GOMEZ
  16. Magistrado (E)
  17. ALBERTO ROJAS RIOS
  18. Magistrado
  19. LUIS ERNESTO VARGAS SILVA
  20. Magistrado
  21. MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA MENDEZ
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo
Magistrado
✓
Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub
Magistrado
04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
← cites 0cited by 1 →A. 022/17A. 160/20A. 160/202020
constitutional review unification tutela
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by1

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.