JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 3, 2004

A- de 2004

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

Reporting justice Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra

✓Claimant Elizabeth Lesmes Avila

✓
Topic · hard data
Correccion Parte Resolutiva Sentencia C-310/04. Se Corrige El Numeral Primero De La Parte Resolutiva De La Sentencia En El Sentido De Que El Articulo Del Codigo Civil A Que Se Refiere Es El 248 Y No El 240.
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.

Sentencia De Constitucionalidad
  • Corrección de parte resolutiva
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se realizó la corrección en el numeral primero de la parte resolutiva de la Sentencia C-310/04 por error se hizo mención del Art. 240 del Código Civil, cuando ha debido hacerse referencia al Art. 248 de dicho Código.

Por lo anterior, resulta necesario corregir el anterior error.

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 (5 points)
  1. Corregir el numeral
  2. primero. de la parte resolutiva de la Sentencia C-310/04 , en el sentido de que el artículo del Código Civil a que se refiere es el 248 y no el 240.
  3. Por lo tanto, en lo sucesivo dicho numeral quedará así:
  4. Primero. Declarar INEXEQUIBLE la expresión "trescientos días" contenida en el inciso 2 del numeral 2 del artículo 248 del Código Civil.
  5. Notifíquese,
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.