JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)February 14, 2007

A- de 2007

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

Reporting justice Rodrigo Escobar Gil

✓Claimant Miriam Quiñonez Torres Vs. Colfondos

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia Entre Los Juzgados Once Laboral Del Circuito Y Veintitres Civil Municipal, Ambos De Cali. Ordena Remitir El Expediente Al Juzgado Veintitres Civil Municipal De Cali
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.

Accion De Tutela Contra Colfondos
  • Competencia de Juez Civil Municipal
Conflicto De Competencia En Tutela
  • Superior jerárquico común
  • Asunción por Corte Constitucional cuando no existe superior jerárquico común
Juez De Tutela
  • Vinculación de otras entidades para la efectiva protección una vez asumido el conocimiento
3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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 (2 points)
  1. PRIMERO. ORDENAR que por intermedio de la Secretaria General de la Corte Constitucional, se REMITA al Juzgado Veintitres Civil Municipal de Cali, el expediente contentivo de la accion de tutela promovida por la ciudadana Miriam Quinonez Torres contra la Administradora de Fondos de Pensiones Colfondos S.A. para que asuma de forma inmediata el conocimiento del mismo.
  2. SEGUNDO. Por Secretaria General COMUNIQUESE al Juzgado Once Laboral del Circuito de Cali, lo resuelto en esta providencia con el fin de ponerle en conocimiento los fundamentos constitucionales y legales en virtud de los cuales se adopta la presente decision.
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.

Separate opinions — text available1
DissentJaime Araujo Rentería
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
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.

Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

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