JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)December 4, 2024

A- de 2024

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

Reporting justice Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar

✓Claimant Rodríguez Vargas Nelson Helber·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.

3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recusación presentada en contra del magistrado Vladimir Fernández Andrade.

El fundamento del demandante fue que, como el precitado magistrado se desempeñó como secretario jurídico de la presidencia de la República de Gustavo Petro Urrego, previo a su cargo en la Corte Constitucional, estaba incurso en la causal de impedimento prevista en el artículo 25 del Decreto 2067 de 1991, relativa a tener interés en la decisión.

Tras verificar que la recusación impetrada incumplió el requisito de carga argumentativa, la Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió RECHAZARLA, por falta de pertinencia.

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. RECHAZAR, por falta de pertinencia, la recusación presentada por el ciudadano Nelson Helber Rodríguez Vargas dentro del proceso D-16.147 acumulado al D-16.139, en contra del Magistrado Vladimir Fernández Andrade, dado que no se cumple con el requisito de carga argumentativa, de conformidad con lo expuesto en esta providencia.
  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.

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.