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 José Fernando Reyes Cuartas

✓Claimant Rueda Carreño Laura Marcela·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 De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Incompetencia de la Corte Constitucional para conocer demanda contra decreto reglamentario
2 topics · 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 por la falta de competencia de la Corte Constitucional para conocer cuestionamientos hechos a una norma que forma parte de un decreto reglamentario.

La Sala Plena avaló la determinación de rechazo y constató que el decreto demandado no estaba dentro de aquellos cuya competencia le asiste a la Corporación adelantar su examen de constitucionalidad, al tenor de lo previsto en el artículo 6 del Decreto 2067 de 1991.

Con base en lo anterior y ante la insuficiencia argumentativa del recurrente, se RECHAZÓ la súplica invocada.

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 el recurso de súplica formulado contra auto del 28 de mayo de 2024, mediante el cual la magistrada Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad presentada por la ciudadana Laura Marcela Rueda Carreño contra el artículo 3° (parcial) del Decreto 1545 de 2013. Lo anterior, por el incumplimiento del requisito de carga argumentativa
  2. Segundo. Proceda la Secretaría General de la Corte Constitucional a comunicarle el contenido de esta decisión a la recurrente, indicándole que contra esta decisión 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.

Separate opinions — text available1
ConcurrenceVladimir Fernández Andrade
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.

Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

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