JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 12, 2013

A- de 2013

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

Reporting justice Luis Guillermo Guerrero Pérez

✓Claimant Christian Alberto Niño Roa·Respondent Sin Información

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.

Principio De Cosa Juzgada
  • Respeto a la seguridad jurídica
Corte Constitucional
  • Incompetencia para variar o modificar el alcance de los fallos o apartes de los mismos
Accion De Tutela En Materia De Estabilidad Laboral Reforzada Y Reintegro Laboral De Personas Con Limitaciones
  • Rechazar solicitud de concepto jurídico en relación con sentencia T-864/11
Sentencia De Revision De Tutela
  • Improcedencia de adición, ampliación, aclaración o reforma
4 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

El memorialista solicitó a la Sala de Revisión que se pronunciara en relación con la sentencia T-864/11, proceso en el cual fungió como accionante, a efectos de que le fuera explicado el alcance de algunas de las determinaciones adoptadas en la citada providencia.

Se decide RECHAZAR la solicitud de concepto jurídico deprecada.

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. RESUELVE:
  2. RECHAZAR la solicitud de concepto jurídico en relación con la Sentencia T-864 de 2011, formulada por Christian Alberto Niño Roa, por ser improcedente.
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.