JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 24, 1994

A- de 1994

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

Reporting justice Jorge Arango Mejía

✓Claimant Cardona Wilches Norman Rene

✓
Topic · hard data
Competencia Territorial. Nulidad Por Incompetencia Del Juez
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.

3 topics · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se declaró la nulidad procesal en el presente asunto a partir de la providencia proferida por el Juzgado competente, por considerar se configuró la nulidad procesal denominada carencia de competencia por parte del juez.

La Corte consideró que en este caso se prescindió de la notificación a la entidad demandada al momento de iniciar la acción de tutela, omisión que vulnera el derecho constitucional fundamental al debido proceso, el cual debe ser garantizado en todas las actuaciones durante el trámite de la tutela.

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.

  1. R E S U E L V E :
  2. PRIMERO. DECLARAR LA NULIDAD PROCESAL en el presente asunto a partir de la providencia calendada 1 de junio de 1994, proferida por el Juzgado Penal Municipal de Caicedonia, Valle, por las razones expuestas en esta providencia.
  3. SEGUNDO. DEVOLVER el presente expediente al Juzgado Penal Municipal de Caicedonia, Valle, para que proceda de conformidad con lo expuesto en la parte considerativa de esta providencia.
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.

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
constitutional review unification tutela

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