JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 25, 2008

A- de 2008

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 Leonardo Jimenez Williamson En Representacion De Su Hijo Miguel Angel Jimenez Romero Vs. Sanitas Eps

✓
Topic · hard data
Incidente De Desacato De La Sentencia T-695/07. Conocimiento Del Juez De Primera Instancia. Rechazar Por Improcedente.
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.

Juez De Primera Instancia
  • Conocimiento de incidente de desacato y adopción de medidas a que haya lugar
  • Establece los demás efectos del fallo y mantiene competencia hasta que esté completamente restablecido el derecho o eliminadas las causas de la amenaza
Corte Constitucional
  • Competencia excepcional para asegurar el cumplimiento de fallo de Sala de Revisión
Juez De Tutela
  • Competente para dictar órdenes que aseguren el restablecimiento del derecho o las causas de la amenaza sean eliminadas
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. Primero. RECHAZAR por improcedente la solicitud de iniciar incidente de desacato promovido por Daniel Humberto Sarmiento, en representación de Leonardo Jiménez Williamson y su hijo Miguel Ángel Jiménez Romero.
  2. Segundo. INFORMAR a Daniel Humberto Sarmiento que el juez competente para conocer del incidente de desacato de la sentencia T-695 de 2007, es el Juzgado
  3. Sexto. Penal Municipal con funciones de Control de Garantías de Bogotá.
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.