JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 5, 2004

A- de 2004

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

Reporting justice Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa

✓Claimant Álvaro Rafael Pacheco Pimiento·Respondent Tribunal Superior De Bogotá, Sala Laboral

✓
Topic · hard data
Solicitud De Nulidad Del Auto De Sala Plena Del 8 De Junio De 2004, Que Denegó La Solicitud De Nulidad De La Sentencia T-057 De 2004, Proferida Por La Sala Tercera De Revisión
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.

Notificacion Fallo De Tutela
  • Alcance
  • Entrega de telegrama en vivienda del actor
  • Fue realizada en debida forma
  • Medios
1 topic · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se rechazó la solicitud de nulidad presentada por el ciudadano de la referencia contra el auto de Sala Plena del día ocho de junio de 2004 que denegó la solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-057/04 proferida por la Sala Tercera de Revisión, toda vez que los argumentos del actor acerca de la indebida notificación de la providencia no son concluyentes.

Contra el presente auto 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. RECHAZAR la solicitud de nulidad presentada por el senor Alvaro Rafael Pacheco Pimiento contra el auto de Sala Plena del dia ocho (8) de junio de 2004.
  2. Segundo. Contra la presente providencia 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.