JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 11, 2007

A- de 2007

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

Reporting justice Rodrigo Escobar Gil

✓Claimant Juan Carlos Gomez Santos Vs. Presidencia De La Republica Y Otros

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia Entre El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo De Cundinamarca Seccion Cuarta Subseccion B Y La Corte Suprema De Justicia Sala De Casacion Civil. Ordena Remitir El Expediente Al Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo De Cundinamarca Seccion Cuarta Subseccion B
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.

Conflicto De Competencia En Tutela
  • Autoridad administrativa del orden nacional
  • Competencia Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de Cundinamarca
Jurisdiccion Constitucional
  • No corresponde a quienes la ejercen determinar a priori contra quienes se dirige la acción de tutela
2 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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. ORDENAR que por intermedio de la Secretaria General de la Corte Constitucional, se REMITA al Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de Cundinamarca, Seccion Cuarta, Subseccion B, el expediente contentivo de la accion de tutela promovida el ciudadano Juan Carlos Gomez Santos contra la Presidencia de la Republica y el Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia, para que asuma de forma inmediata el conocimiento del mismo.
  2. SEGUNDO. Por Secretaria General COMUNIQUESE a la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casacion Civil, lo resuelto en esta providencia.
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.

Separate opinions — text available1
DissentJaime Araujo Rentería
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.

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.