JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 18, 2007

A- de 2007

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

Reporting justice Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa

✓Claimant Carmenza Campos De Garzon Y Otros Vs. Cajanal

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia Entre El Juzgado 3º De Familia De Neiva Y El Juzgado Promiscuo Del Circuito De Belen De Los Andaquies – Caqueta. Ordena Remitir El Expediente Al Juzgado 3º De Familia De Neiva - Huila
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.

Competencia A Prevención En Tutela
  • Lugar donde ocurrió amenaza o vulneración de derechos fundamentales o donde se produjeron sus efectos
Accion De Tutela Contra Caja Nacional De Prevision Social
  • Conocimiento por Juez de Familia
  • Remisión expediente para su conocimiento y resolución con el apremio de los términos legales
Conflicto De Competencia En Tutela
  • Competencia a prevención
3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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. Remitir, por intermedio de Secretaria General, el expediente de la referencia al Juzgado 3deg de Familia de Neiva Huila, para que en ejercicio de sus competencias constitucionales y legales, y dentro de los terminos establecidos, decida la accion de tutela de Carmenza Campos de Garzon, Maria Aguja de Cardenas, Edgar Andrade Zambrano y Victor Manuel Jordan Puentes contra la Caja Nacional de Prevision, CAJANAL.
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
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.