JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 12, 2002

A- de 2002

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant James Herrera Piñeros

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia
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.

2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se inaplicó el Art. 1º del Decreto 1382 de 2000 por ser contrario a la Constitución Política, en relación con la tutela promovida contra el Instituto del Seguro Social E.P.S.

Seccional Huila.

En consecuencia, se ordenó remitir el expediente en forma inmediata al Consejo Seccional de la Judicatura del Huila -Sala Jurisdiccional Disciplinaria- para que realice el trámite correspondiente.

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. Inaplicar, el articulo 1o del Decreto 1382 de 12 de julio de 2000, por ser contrario a la Constitucion Politica conforme a lo expuesto en la parte motiva de este auto, en relacion con la accion de tutela promovida contra el Instituto del Seguro Social E.P.S. Seccional Huila por el ciudadano James Herrera Pineros.
  2. Segundo. Enviese el expediente en forma inmediata al Consejo Seccional de la Judicatura del Huila -Sala Jurisdiccional Disciplinaria- magistrada Teresa Helena Munoz de Castro, para que se le de tramite en forma inmediata a la accion de tutela a que se ha hecho referencia.
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.