JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 1, 2003

A- de 2003

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant Sociedad Administradora De Fondos De Pensiones Y Cesantias Porvenir S.A.

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia
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.

Conflicto De Competencia En Tutela
  • Entidad del sector descentralizado por servicios del orden nacional
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se remitió el expediente contentivo de la tutela promovida por la Sociedad Administradora de Fondos de Pensiones y Cesantías Porvenir S.A. contra la Superintendencia de Sociedades, al Juzgado 27 Penal del Circuito de Bogotá para que, sin más dilación tramite y decida conforme a derecho, toda vez que esta Corte dará aplicación a lo dispuesto por el Art. 1º, numeral primero del Decreto 1382 de 2000.

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. En merito de lo expuesto, la Corte Constitucional, en Sala Plena,
  2. RESUELVE
  3. Remitase el expediente contentivo de la accion de tutela promovida por la Sociedad Administradora de Fondos de Pensiones y Cesantias Porvenir S.A. contra la Superintendencia de Sociedades, al Juzgado 27 Penal del Circuito de Bogota para que, sin mas dilacion la tramite y decida conforme a Derecho.
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.

Separate opinions — text available1
DissentJaime Araujo Rentería
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
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

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