JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 25, 2012

A- de 2012

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

Reporting justice Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo

✓Claimant Victor Velasquez Reyes

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.

Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Carga mínima de argumentación
  • Cumplimiento de requisitos formales
  • Razones claras, suficientes, conducentes y pertinentes
  • Rechazo por falta de requisitos de especificidad, pertinencia y suficiencia
4 topics · 7 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de Súplica interpuesto contra el auto del 13 de abril de 2012, dictado por el magistrado Juan Carlos Henao Pérez, mediante el cual se rechazó la demanda de la referencia, por estimar que el demandante no logró dar cabal cumplimiento a los requisitos de especificidad, pertinencia y suficiencia.

La Sala coincide con el magistrado sustanciado en cuanto a que el actor no corrigió el líbelo en los términos indicados en el auto de inadmisión y tampoco debatió el fundamento jurídico del auto recurrido.

Se decide CONFIRMAR el auto suplicado.

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. RESUELVE
  2. CONFIRMAR el Auto del 13 de abril de 2012 dictado por el Magistrado Sustanciador, Juan Carlos Henao Perez, por medio del cual rechazo la demanda de inconstitucionalidad, por vicios de procedimiento, identificada con el numero de radicacion D-8992, por las consideraciones expuestas en la presente 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.

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.