JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 4, 2021

A- de 2021

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

Reporting justice Cristina Pardo Schlesinger

✓Claimant Nubia M. Rodriguez Torres Y Otra

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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica.

La demanda fue rechazada porque las razones del escrito de corrección no superaron los defectos indicados en el auto inadmisorio.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió RECHAZAR el recurso impetrado, luego de comprobar que se presentó extemporáneamente.

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.

See the operative part (3 points)
  1. Primero. RECHAZAR el recurso de suplica presentado contra el auto del 4 de febrero de 2021, proferido por la magistrada Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado, que rechazo la demanda de inconstitucionalidad formulada por las ciudadanas Nubia M. Rodriguez Torres y Dora C. Rodriguez Torres, en contra de los articulos 2 de la Ley 1475 de 2011; 21, 48, 53, 62, 63 y 64 del Decreto 1278 de 2002; 7, 8, 9 y 29 del Decreto 709 de 1996; 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 47, 53, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80 y 81 del Decreto 2277 de 1979; y 77, 78, 79, 80 y 81 del Decreto 2912 de 2001, radicada con el numero D-14068, por las razones expuestas en la presente providencia.
  2. Segundo. COMUNICAR, a traves de la Secretaria General de la Corte, el contenido de esta decision a la parte demandante, indicandole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. Tercero. ARCHIVAR el expediente D-14068.
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

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