JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 29, 2012

A- de 2012

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

Reporting justice Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub

✓Claimant Henry Oswaldo Garzon Perilla·Respondent Sin Información

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.

3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de Súplica interpuesto en contra del auto del 22 de febrero de 2012, dictado en el proceso de la referencia por el Magistrado Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, mediante el cual se rechazó la demanda porque el actor dejó vencer en silencio el término concedido para efectuar las correcciones que dieron origen a la inadmisión, sin haberlas realizado.

Se CONFIRMA el auto recurrido por improcedente, ya que el peticionario no expuso ningún argumento específico en contra del auto de rechazo, sino que presentó la corrección de la demanda solicitada en el auto que la inadmitió.

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. CONFIRMAR el auto del veintidos (22) de febrero de 2012, por el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Henry Oswaldo Garzon Perilla, contra las leyes 99 de 1993, 141 de 1994, 338 de 1997, 599 de 2000, articulos 154, 164 y 328 (parciales), 1205, 1242, 1252 y 1259 de 2008; y 1333 de 2009.
  2. SEGUNDO. ARCHIVESE el expediente.
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.