JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 13, 2024

A- de 2024

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

Reporting justice Juan Carlos Cortés González

✓Claimant Araque Blanco Camilo Y Otro·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
  • Incumplimiento de la carga argumentativa
  • Finalidad
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda
  • Demandante debe efectuar razonamiento mínimo para constatar yerro o arbitrariedad
2 topics · 3 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 con el escrito de subsanación no se corrigieron los problemas argumentativos que presentaba el cargo único propuesto por los actores.

Tras evidenciar que la súplica examinada no satisfizo la carga argumentativa requerida para este tipo de recursos, la Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió RECHAZARLA.

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 falta de carga argumentativa, el recurso de súplica presentado por Camilo Araque Blanco y Germán Mauricio Marín Martínez contra el auto de 17 de julio de 2024, que rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad presentada dentro del expediente D-15899, contra el artículo 25 (parcial) de la Ley 1952 de 2019.
  2. SEGUNDO. A través de la Secretaría General de la Corte Constitucional, COMUNICAR esta decisión a los recurrentes, indicándoles que contra la misma no proceden recursos.
  3. TERCERO. Una vez comunicada 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.