JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 1, 2003

A- de 2003

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

Reporting justice Jaime Córdoba Triviño

✓Claimant Jorge Hernando Romero Cadena

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto De Marzo 5/03
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.

Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Improcedencia de recursos contra auto inadmisorio
  • Rechazo por no corrección de la demanda
  • Inadmisión y corrección
  • Justificación del término para subsanar
  • Recurso de súplica
3 topics · 7 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se confirmó el Auto del 5 de marzo de 2003 en relación con la demanda presentada por el ciudadano de la referencia, toda vez que esta Corte encontró que el actor no sustentó la razón por la cual consideraba que la norma demandada era inconstitucional y no precisó los motivos por los cuales esa norma contrariaba el principio de igualdad.

En efecto, no basta indicar en la demanda que una disposición vulnera un artículo de la Constitución si no se señalan las razones de orden constitucional para sustentar tal afirmación.

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. En merito de lo expuesto, la Sala Plena de la Corte Constitucional,
  2. RESUELVE:
  3. CONFIRMAR el Auto del 5 de marzo de 2003, proferido por el Magistrado Manuel Jose Cepeda Espinosa, en relacion con la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Jorge Hernando Romero Cadena.
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.