JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 20, 2014

A- de 2014

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

Reporting justice María Victoria Calle Correa

✓Claimant Chevron Petroleum Company Y Otro

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.

Solicitud De Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Negar por cuanto no se desconoció precedente constitucional
  • Se debió declarar nulidad de sentencia por cuanto se desconoció precedente constitucional
1 topic · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitudes de nulidad de la sentencia T-712/11.

Los argumentos esgrimidos en las solicitudes de nulidad tienen que ver, entre otros, con el desconocimiento de la Sala de Revisión del precedente establecido en la sentencia C-506/01, al igual que el fijado para establecer una reserva de ley para la imposición de deberos a los particulares y el de la no posibilidad de mezclar normas de distintos regímenes pensionales.

Luego de un análisis detallado de las peticiones, la Sala Plena de la Corte estima que la sentencia T-712/11no es susceptible de anulación por el cargo de desconocimiento del precedente, tal y como lo presentaron las entidades recurrentes.

DENEGADAS.

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. NEGAR la solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-712 de 2011, proferida por la Sala Primera de Revision de la Corte Constitucional.
  2. Segundo. Comuniquese la presente providencia a los peticionarios, informandoles que contra ella 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.

Separate opinions — text available1
DissentGabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo
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.

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.