JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)January 31, 2024

A- de 2024

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

Reporting justice Vladimir Fernández Andrade

✓Claimant Carabalí Mosquera José Yimi·Respondent --

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)

Recurso de súplica.

La demanda se rechazó porque en el escrito de corrección no se subsanaron los yerros identificados en el auto de inadmisión.

Luego de revisar los argumentos del recurrente encontró la Corte que no satisfacen el requisito mínimo de carga argumentativa y, por ello, se RECHAZA el recurso por resultar improcedente.

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. Por las razones expuestas en el presente auto, RECHAZAR por improcedente el recurso de súplica presentado por el señor José Yimi Carabalí Mosquera en contra del auto del 24 de noviembre de 2023 proferido por el magistrado Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar, mediante el cual se rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad formulada por el mencionado ciudadano en contra del artículo 375 de la Ley 1564 de 2012.
  2. Segundo. COMUNICAR, a través de la Secretaría General, el contenido de esta decisión al demandante, indicándole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. Tercero. Una vez se encuentre ejecutoriada la decisión adoptada en el presente auto, ARCHIVAR el expediente D-15549.
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
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

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