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 Luis Eduardo Montealegre Lynett

✓Claimant Claudia Patricia Rodriguez Macea

✓
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 al Tribunal Administrativo de Antioquia que asuma el conocimiento de la tutela presentada por la ciudadana de la referencia contra el Ministerio de Salud, el CONPES social y el Municipio de Apartadó, de conformidad con lo establecido, en el inciso primero del Art. 1º del Decreto Reglamentario 1382 de 2000 “Las acciones de tutela que se interpongan contra cualquier autoridad pública del orden nacional, salvo lo dispuesto en el siguiente inciso, serán repartidos para su conocimiento, en primera instancia, a los Tribunales superiores de Distrito Judicial, Administrativos, o Consejos Seccionales de la Judicatura”.

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 Sala Plena de la Corte Constitucional,
  2. RESUELVE:
  3. Ordenar al Tribunal Administrativo de Antioquia que asuma de forma inmediata el conocimiento de la accion de tutela presentada por la senora Claudia Patricia Rodriguez Macea, contra el Ministerio de Salud, el CONPES social y el Municipio de Apartado.
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.

Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

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