JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)January 31, 2001

A- de 2001

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

Reporting justice Carlos Gaviria Díaz

✓Claimant Livingston Jaime Arevalo Galindo

✓
Topic · hard data
Solicitud Aclaracion Sentencia C-846/99
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.

Sentencia De Constitucionalidad
  • Improcedencia de aclaración de efectos del fallo
  • Improcedencia de recursos
1 topic · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se rechazó por improcedente la solicitud de aclaración de la Sentencia C-846/99, formulada por el actor de la referencia, toda vez que la jurisprudencia constitucional ha establecido claramente a imposibilidad de resolver consultas o solicitudes, presentadas por autoridades judiciales o particulares, en las que se pide la aclaración de los efectos de sus fallos, pues esta es sin duda, una atribución que se escapa del marco funcional que la constitución le asigna a la Corte Constitucional y contraria los principios sobre los que descansa la efectiva y pronta administración del justicia.

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. en merito de lo expuesto, la sala plena de la corte constitucional, en ejercicio de sus facultades constitucionales y legales,
  2. RESUELVE
  3. RECHAZAR por improcedente la solicitud de aclaracion de la sentencia C-846 de 1999, formulada por el senor LIVINGSTON JAIME AREVALO GALINDO.
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.