A- de 2020
The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.
Reporting justice Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
✓Claimant Juan Pablo Meza
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.
- Rechazar por impertinente
- Carácter excepcional y taxativo de las causales en que se originan, lo cual exige una interpretación restrictiva de las mismas
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)
Recusación.
El memorialista formuló la recusación contra la totalidad de los magistrados de esta Corporación, por considerar que en el presente caso se configura la causal “tener interés en la decisión”, consagrada en el artículo 25 del Decreto Ley 2067 de 1991.
Luego de analizar los fundamentos del peticionario, la Corte decidió RECHAZAR la recusación, por falta de pertinencia
What it decided
Operative part (Resuelve)
✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.
- Primero. RECHAZAR, por falta de pertinencia, la recusacion formulada por el ciudadano Juan Pablo Meza contra todos los magistrados que integran la Sala Plena de la Corte.
- Segundo. Contra esta providencia no procede recurso alguno.
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.
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 indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.