JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 13, 2007

A- de 2007

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

Reporting justice Rodrigo Escobar Gil

✓Claimant Carlos Fradique-Mendez

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra El Auto Del 10 De Mayo De 2007 De Rechazo De La Demanda, Proferido Por El Magistrado Sustanciador Dr. Jaime Cordoba Triviño, Aduciendo Que La Corte Si Puede Adelantar El Control De Constitucionalidad En Dicho Caso. La Corte Considera Que En Asuntos Religiosos Las Iglesias Y Confesiones Religiosas Gozan De Autonomia Para Dictarse Sus Propias Normas De Organizacion, Regimen Interno Y Disposiciones Que Rigen Para Sus Miembros Y Al Estado No Le Es Permitido Intervenir En Dichos Asuntos. Confirma El Auto De Rechazo De La 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.

Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad Contra Codigo Canonico
  • Incompetencia de la Corte Constitucional
Libertad Religiosa
  • Autonomía para dictar sus propias normas
Recurso De Suplica Contra Rechazo Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Incompetencia de la Corte Constitucional para conocer demanda contra código canónico
3 topics · 3 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. En merito de lo expuesto, la Sala Plena de esta Corporacion,
  2. RESUELVE
  3. CONFIRMAR en su integridad el Auto de mayo 10 de 2007, proferido por el Magistrado Sustanciador Jaime Cordoba Trivino, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda interpuesta por el ciudadano Carlos Fradique-Mendez.
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.