JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 12, 2022

A- de 2022

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

Reporting justice José Fernando Reyes Cuartas

✓Claimant Mayor Farfán Jhon Alejandro·Respondent --

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.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda
  • Demandante debe efectuar razonamiento mínimo para constatar yerro o arbitrariedad
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 se rechazó por la indebida subsanación, en tanto el escrito de corrección no logró aclarar las dudas suscitadas y advertidas en el auto de inadmisión.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación coincidió con la magistrada sustanciadora en el sentido de advertir que la demanda carece de los requisitos mínimos de admisibilidad.

Con base en lo anterior, se CONFIRMÓ el auto cuestionado, al no encontrar demostrado que el mismo hubiese incurrido en algún yerro o arbitrariedad.

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. Primero. CONFIRMAR el auto del 15 de julio de 2022, proferido por la magistrada Cristina Pardo Schlesinger en el proceso D-14832, mediante el cual se rechazó la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Jhon Alejandro Mayor Farfán contra el artículo 18 (parcial) de la Ley 2050 de 2020.
  2. Segundo. Proceda la Secretaría General de la Corte Constitucional a comunicar el contenido de esta decisión al recurrente, indicándole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. Tercero. En firme esta decisión, archívese el expediente.
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
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

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