JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 28, 2024

A- de 2024

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

Reporting justice Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera

✓Claimant Uribe Muñoz Alirio·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
  • Requisitos de procedencia
  • Incumplimiento de la carga argumentativa
1 topic · 2 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 no se superaron los errores advertidos en el auto de inadmisión.

Considera la Sala Plena de la Corporación que la ausencia de razones que demostraran los errores o arbitrariedades en la fase inicial de calificación de la demanda conllevan a que el recurso impetrado resulte IMPROCEDENTE, por incumplir con el requisito de carga argumentativa.

Con base en lo anterior se RECHAZÓ la súplica invocada.

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 carencia argumentativa, el recurso de súplica formulado en contra del Auto del 31 de julio de 2024, proferido por el magistrado Juan Carlos Cortés González dentro del expediente D-15.915, el cual, a su vez, rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad del ciudadano Alirio Uribe Muñoz contra el artículo 149 (parcial) de la Ley 1437 de 2011.
  2. SEGUNDO. A través de la secretaría general de la Corte Constitucional, COMUNICAR el contenido de esta decisión al demandante, indicándole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decisión, ARCHIVAR el expediente D-15.915.
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.