JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 24, 2024

A- de 2024

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

Reporting justice Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo

✓Claimant Piza Sandoval Nicolás·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 Rechazo Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Requisitos de procedencia
  • Incumplimiento de la carga argumentativa
1 topic · 2 subtopics · 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 porque el actor no subsanó los yerros identificados en el auto de inadmisión.

Constató la Sala Plena de la Corporación que los argumentos planteados por el demandante no cumplieron con la carga argumentativa mínima para habilitar la competencia de la Corte Constitucional para emitir un pronunciamiento de fondo respecto al recurso impetrado y, por ello, decidió RECHAZARLO, por resultar improcedente.

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. RECHAZAR POR IMPROCEDENTE el recurso de súplica presentado por el ciudadano Nicolás Piza Sandoval en contra del auto del 19 de junio de 2024, mediante el cual se rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad formulada en contra del literal e) del artículo 122 de la Ley 30 de 199267.
  2. Segundo. COMUNICAR, por intermedio de la Secretaría General de la Corte, el contenido de esta decisión al demandante, indicándole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada 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

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