JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 20, 2008

A- de 2008

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

Reporting justice Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto

✓Claimant Carlos Andrés Pérez Vs. Tránsito De Cartagena

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia Suscitado Entre El Juzgado Sesenta Y Ocho (68) Civil Municipal De Bogotá Y El Juzgado Octavo (8°) Civil De Cartagena. Se Resolvió Remitir El Expediente Contentivo De La Acción De Tutela Al Juzgado Sesenta Y Ocho (68) Civil Municipal De Bogotá Para Que Le Dé Tramite Y Decida En Forma Inmediata.
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.

Corte Constitucional
  • Argumentos que sustentan la incompetencia para pronunciarse sobre conflictos de competencia que se presentan entre las distintas autoridades judiciales
  • Carece de competencia para pronunciarse sobre conflictos de competencia que se presentan entre las distintas autoridades judiciales
1 topic · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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. REMITASE el expediente contentivo de la accion de tutela propuesta por el ciudadano Carlos Andres Perez contra Transito de Cartagena, al Juzgado sesenta y ocho (68) Civil Municipal de Bogota, para que la de tramite y decida en forma inmediata.
  2. Segundo. Por Secretaria General COMUNIQUESE al Juzgado
  3. octavo. (8deg) Civil de Cartagena, la decision adoptada en esta providencia, con el fin de que tenga conocimiento sobre lo aqui resuelto por la Corte Constitucional, en relacion con el conflicto de competencia.
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.

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.