JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 2, 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 Pinilla González Rubén Darío·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 fue subsanada en los términos indicados en el auto de inadmisión.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación encontró que el recurso no cumplió con la carga mínima necesaria para adelantar el estudio de fondo y, por ello, decidió RECHAZARLO.

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 presentado por el señor Rubén Darío Pinilla González en contra del Auto del 12 de septiembre de 2024, mediante el cual se rechazó la demanda formulada contra los artículos 1 y 7 de la Ley 180 de 1995.
  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-16111.
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.