JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 8, 2000

A- de 2000

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

Reporting justice José Gregorio Hernández Galindo

✓Claimant Miguel Herrera Parga.

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda.
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.

Cosa Juzgada Relativa
  • Alcance
  • No deducible de elementos adicionados a la norma
Recurso De Suplica Contra Rechazo Demanda
  • Carácter absoluto de cosa juzgada
3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se confirmó el auto de rechazo de la demanda presentada por el ciudadano de la referencia contra los incisos 2 y 3 del Art. 22 de la Ley 383 de julio de 1997, toda vez que la Sala Plena consideró que, en este caso, en cuanto la norma examinada no distinguía el sistema que se utilizará para la retención, es natural que en el fallo de inconstitucionalidad tampoco se distinguiera, y por tanto que se dedujera la exequibilidad de la norma con fundamento en los criterios que se tuvieron en cuenta, relativos a un precepto general, que no distinguía, y así fue avalado por la Corte.

Contra esta decisión no procede recurso alguno.

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 de rechazo de la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Miguel Herrera Parga contra los incisos 2 y 3 del artículo 22 de la Ley 383 de julio de 1997.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta decisión no procede recurso alguno.
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.