JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 1, 1996

A- de 1996

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

Reporting justice Jorge Arango Mejía

✓Claimant Fonseca Walteros Jairo Enrique·Respondent Caja Agraria Sucursal Funza

✓
Topic · hard data
Procedencia De La Competencia A Prevencion.
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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se revocó la providencia proferida por el Juzgado de la referencia y, en su lugar, ordenar que dicho juzgado proceda a decidir de fondo sobre la demanda de tutela presentada por el accionante, toda vez que la Corte argumentó que el juez sí era competente para conocer de la acción de tutela presentada por el ciudadano, en consecuencia, debió decidir sobre el fondo en relación con la presunta violación del derecho de petición, invocada por el peticionario.

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. Revocar la providencia de abril veintidos (22) de mil novecientos noventa y seis (1996), proferida por el Juzgado Promiscuo del Circuito de Funza y, en su lugar, ordenar que dicho juzgado proceda a decidir de fondo sobre la demanda de tutela presentada por Jairo Enrique Fonseca Walteros.
  2. SEGUNDO. Comunicar esta decision al Juez Promiscuo del Circuito de Funza, para que sean notificadas las partes, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el articulo 36 del decreto 2591 de 1991.
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.

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.