JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 27, 2002

A- de 2002

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant Alvaro Suarez Zapata

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia
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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se ordenó remitir el expediente contentivo de la tutela promovida por el ciudadano de la referencia al Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Bucaramanga –Sala de Familia-, para que tramite y decida en forma inmediata, toda vez que al momento de interponerse la tutela referida no se había proferido la sentencia del 18 de julio de 2002 del Consejo de Estado, lo que indica que, en ese momento el citado Tribunal, organismo judicial ante el cual se dirigió la solicitud de amparo constitucional por el actor por la supuesta violación al derecho al debido proceso, era el juez competente conforme a lo preceptuado por el Art. 86 de la Carta y el Art. 37 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.

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. En merito de lo expuesto, la Corte Constitucional, en Sala Plena,
  2. RESUELVE:
  3. Remitase el expediente contentivo de la accion de tutela promovida por el ciudadano Alvaro Suarez Zapata, al Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Bucaramanga -Sala de Familia-, para que la tramite y decida en forma inmediata.
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
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

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