JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 23, 2010

A- de 2010

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

Reporting justice Juan Carlos Henao Pérez

✓Claimant Bernardo Augusto Santos Giraldo

✓
Topic · hard data
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
  • Principio de celeridad procesal
3 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recusación contra los magistrados de la Sala Primera de Revisión, el actor interpuso el recurso contra todos los magistrados de esta corporación “en el eventual caso en que sus familiares hasta cuarto grado de consaguinidad ostenten contratos con el Gobierno Nacional y/o el sector de las Telecomunicaciones”.

Se aclara que la recusación es improcedente en los juicios de tutela, ya que es el juez quien deberá declararse impedido, en este caso la Dra.

María Victoria Calle Correa puso en conocimiento de los magistrados de la Corte su eventual impedimento para participar en el proceso de la referencia, ya que fue Vicepresidente Jurídica y Representante Legal de esta empresa, su impedimento no fue aceptado.

Se rechaza por improcedente.

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 recusación formulada por el señor Bernardo Augusto Giraldo contra la magistrada María Victoria Calle Correa.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta decisión no procede recurso alguno.
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.