JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)February 15, 2006

A- de 2006

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

Reporting justice Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra

✓Claimant Guillermo Otalora Lozano

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra El Auto Del 1º De Febrero De 2006 Mediante El Cual Se Rechazo La Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad Contra El Literal H, Parcial, Del Articulo 6 De La Ley 133 De 1994 Que Desarrolla La Libertad Religiosa Y De Cultos, Reconocido En El Articulo 19 De La Constitucion Politica. Confirma El Auto De Rechazo De La Demanda
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.

Control De Constitucionalidad De Ley Estatutaria
  • Caso excepcional en que procede nuevo juicio de constitucionalidad
  • Carácter integral, definitivo y efectos de cosa juzgada
Recurso De Suplica Contra Rechazo Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Existencia de cosa juzgada constitucional frente a ley estatutaria de libertad religiosa y de cultos
6 topics · 7 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.

  1. Primero. Por las razones estudiadas, CONFIRMAR en todas sus partes el Auto del 1o de febrero de 2006, proferido por el despacho del magistrado ponente en el proceso D-6184, doctor Rodrigo Escobar Gil, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Guillermo Otalora Lozano, en contra del literal h), parcial, del articulo 6, de la Ley 133 de 1994.
  2. Segundo. ARCHIVESE el expediente.
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.