JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 15, 2013

A- de 2013

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

Reporting justice Nilson Elías Pinilla Pinilla

✓Claimant Apoderado Judicial Del Señor Arturo Calle Calle

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
  • Negar por cuanto no existió vulneración del debido proceso
  • Debe cumplir con los requisitos de procedibilidad
  • Presupuestos formales y materiales de procedencia
1 topic · 3 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-382/10.

El recurrente considera que la sentencia en mención vulnera el derecho a la defensa y al debido proceso, en tanto resultó errado lo resuelto en ella por no haber valorado todos los documentos allegados al proceso.

La Sala Plena encuentra que la apreciación probatoria realizada por la Sala de Revisión no fue irrazonada, incompleta, ni arbitraria, así como tampoco contraria al debido proceso.

Descartada la materialización de la nulidad endilgada, se decide DENEGAR la solicitud 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.

  1. Primero. DENEGAR la nulidad de la sentencia T-382 de 2010, proferida en mayo 21 de 2010 por la Sala Sexta de Revision de Tutelas.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia no procede recurso alguno.
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
ConcurrenceGabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo
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.