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 Cristina Pardo Schlesinger

✓Claimant Juan Manuel Gutierrez Lacouture

✓
Topic · hard data
Solicitud Complementacion Sentenciat-1752/00
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.

Acción De Tutela
  • Improcedencia de complementación
1 topic · 1 subtopic · 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 elevada por el apoderado dentro de la causa del actor referido, mediante la cual pretendía que la Corte Constitucional complementara la Sentencia T-1752/00, lo anterior, de conformidad con lo preceptuado en el Art. 241 de la Constitución Política, las funciones asignadas a esta Corporación deberán cumplirse “en los estrictos y precisos términos de este artículo”, sin que en el mismo figure la de pronunciarse extemporáneamente sobre el sentido de los fallos que han hecho tránsito a cosa juzgada constitucional, ni la de complementar sus sentencias.

Contra esta providencia no procede ningún recurso.

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. PRIMERO. RECHAZAR por improcedente la solicitud elevada por el apoderado dentro de la causa Juan Manuel Gutierrez Lacouture, mediante la cual pretendia que la Corte Constitucional complementara la Sentencia T-1752 de 2000.
  2. SEGUNDO. Contra esta providencia no procede ningun recurso.
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.