JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 16, 2002

A- de 2002

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

Reporting justice Alvaro Tafur Galvis

✓Claimant Bernardo Carreño Varela

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda
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.

Corte Constitucional
  • Incompetencia sobre disposición constitucional transitoria
  • Factor determinante de competencia
  • Factor determinante de competencia atendiendo norma expresa
Metodos De Interpretacion Constitucional
  • No exclusión de tradicionales
Interpretacion Literal
  • Responde a voluntad del constituyente
Corte Constitucional En Norma Constitucional Transitoria
  • Incompetencia sobre normas de adecuación de administración nacional a nuevos mandatos constitucionales
  • Incompetencia sobre normas para consonancia de estructura de administración con nuevo ordenamiento fundamental
7 topics · 8 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se confirmó el auto proferido dentro del expediente D-4079, en lo referente al rechazo de la demanda contra el Art. 11 (parcial) del Decreto 2171 de 1992.

Por lo anterior, la Corte explicó que en la medida en que esta norma no existe, es al Consejo de Estado, en virtud del numeral 2 del Art. 237 en concordancia con el Art. 241 de la Constitución, a quien corresponde el examen de constitucionalidad de dichos decretos.

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. R E S U E L V E:
  2. CONFIRMAR el auto del 17 de junio de 2002, proferido dentro del expediente D-4079, en lo referente al rechazo de la demanda contra el articulo 11 (parcial) del Decreto 2171 de 1992.
  3. Notifiquese, copiese e
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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
Separate opinions — text available4
Partial dissentAlejandro Martínez CaballeroPartial dissentFabio Morón DíazPartial dissentManuel José Cepeda EspinosaPartial dissentEduardo Montealegre Lynett
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.