A- de 2017
The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.
Reporting justice Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo
✓Claimant Daniel Fernando Gutierrez Y Otros
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.
- Rechazar por impertinente
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)
Recusación formulada contra la Magistrada María Victoria Calle Correa.
Los peticionarios, actuando como representantes de la Universidad de Caldas, argumentaron como causal la prevista en el artículo 25 del Decreto Ley 2067 de 1991, esto es, haber conceptuado sobre la constitucionalidad de la disposición acusada.
La Corte decide RECHAZAR, por falta de pertinencia, la recusación invocada, por la falta de oportunidad en su formulación.
What it decided
Operative part (Resuelve)
✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.
- Primero. RECHAZAR por falta de pertinencia la recusacion presentada contra la magistrada Maria Victoria Calle Correa, por los senores Daniel Fernando Gutierrez Hurtado y Juan Pablo Osorio Marin, quienes manifiestan actuar como representantes de la Universidad de Caldas.
- Segundo. Contra esta providencia no procede recurso alguno.
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.
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 indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.