JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 19, 2023

A- de 2023

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 Guerra Picon Ciro Alfonso

✓
Topic · hard data
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.

Solicitud De Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Presupuestos formales de procedencia
  • Improcedencia por falta de carga argumentativa
  • Debió valorar de fondo las peticiones que la fundamentaron
Acoso Judicial
  • Abuso del derecho en el acceso a la administración de justicia
2 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-452/22.

Se pidió a la Corporación dejar sin efectos el fallo de la referencia, por considerarlo violatorio del debido proceso.

Encontró la Sala Plena que la presente petición, aunque cumple los requisitos de oportunidad y legitimación, no cumple el presupuesto de carga argumentativa, dado que no es expresa, pertinente, ni suficiente.

Con base en lo anterior, se RECHAZA la nulidad impetrada.

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.

See the operative part (25 points)
  1. Primero. RECHAZAR la solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-452 de 2022 formulada por el señor Ciro Alfonso Guerra Picón por intermedio de su apoderado judicial.
  2. SEGUNDO. ORDENAR que se comunique la presente providencia a los interesados, con la advertencia de que contra esta decisión no procede recurso alguno.
  3. Comuníquese y cúmplase.
  4. DIANA FAJARDO RIVERA
  5. Presidenta
  6. NATALIA ÁNGEL CABO
  7. Magistrada
  8. Con aclaración de voto
  9. JUAN CARLOS CORTÉS GONZÁLEZ
  10. Magistrado
  11. JORGE ENRIQUE IBÁÑEZ NAJAR
  12. Magistrado
  13. ALEJANDRO LINARES CANTILLO
  14. Magistrado
  15. Con aclaración de voto
  16. ANTONIO JOSÉ LIZARAZO OCAMPO
  17. Magistrado
  18. Con salvamento de voto
  19. PAOLA ANDREA MENESES MOSQUERA
  20. Magistrada
  21. CRISTINA PARDO SCHLESINGER
  22. Magistrada
  23. JOSE FERNANDO REYES CUARTAS
  24. Magistrado
  25. ANDREA LILIANA ROMERO LOPEZ
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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
Reporting justice
Read concurrence
✓
Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
Dissenting opinion
Read dissent
✓
Alejandro Linares Cantillo
Concurring opinion
Read concurrence
✓
Natalia Ángel Cabo
Concurring opinion
Read concurrence
✓
Cristina Pardo Schlesinger
Magistrado
✓
Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar
Magistrado
✓
José Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Magistrado
✓
Juan Carlos Cortés González
Magistrado
✓
Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera
Magistrado
Separate opinions — text available4
ConcurrenceAlejandro Linares CantilloDissentAntonio José Lizarazo OcampoConcurrenceDiana Constanza Fajardo RiveraConcurrenceNatalia Ángel Cabo
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
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.

Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.