JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 5, 2006

A- de 2006

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant Cristina Amparo Cardenas De Bohorquez

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Reposicion Contra El Auto 090 De 2006 Que Decidio La Recusacion Formulada Por La Ciudadana Cristina Amparo Cardenas De Bohorquez Contra El Magistrado Jaime Araujo Renteria. La Iudadana Cristina Amparo Cardenas De Bohorquez Carece De Legitimacion Para Formular Recusacion Contra Magistrados De La Corte Por No Ser Demandante En El Proceso Ni Ocupar El Cargo De Procurador General De La Nacion. No Reponer El Auto
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 Reposicion Contra Auto Que Rechaza Recusacion De Magistrado De La Corte Constitucional
  • Negado por no desvirtuarse presunción de constitucionalidad del art. 28 Dec. 2067/91
Recusacion De Magistrado De La Corte Constitucional
  • Falta de legitimación para formularla
2 topics · 2 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. NO REPONER el auto A-090 de 8 de marzo de 2006, mediante el cual se rechazo por falta de legitimacion de la ciudadana Cristina Amparo Cardenas de Bohorquez para formularla, la recusacion contra el Magistrado Jaime Araujo Renteria a que se ha hecho referencia en la parte motiva de esta providencia.
  2. El original de esta providencia incorporese al expediente D-6122, al cual fueron acumulados los expedientes D-6123 y D-6124.
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

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