JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)December 12, 2025

A- de 2025

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

Reporting justice César Humberto Carvajal Santoyo

✓Claimant Carlos Camargo Assis·Respondent --

✓
Topic · hard data
Sin Información
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.

Impedimento De Los Magistrados De La Corte Constitucional
  • Declarar infundado por causal de tener interés en la decisión
Impedimento
  • Alcance respecto a tener interés en la decisión
3 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Impedimento formulado por el magistrado Carlos Ernesto Camargo Assis.

El funcionario adujo que estaba impedido para conocer los asuntos objeto de revisión, en tanto en uno de los expedientes acumulados el juzgado que conoció el caso en primera instancia vinculó a la Defensoría del Pueblo-Regional Guajira- y en ese momento él se ostentaba el cargo de Defensor del Pueblo.

Advirtió la Corte que en el presente caso no se cumplieron los requisitos previstos por la jurisprudencia para que se considere que se está ante un interés directo del magistrado y, por ello, declaró INFUNDADO el impedimento presentado en esta oportunidad.

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. RESUELVE
  2. PRIMERO. DECLARAR INFUNDADO el impedimento presentado por el magistrado Carlos Ernesto Camargo Assis para decidir en sede de revisión el expediente de tutela T-10.295.225, acumulado al T-10.900.542.
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.