JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 11, 2018

A- de 2018

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Dario Caro Melendez

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.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Improcedencia por silencio del actor durante oportunidad procesal otorgada en el auto inadmisorio
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica.

El rechazo se dio porque el actor no corrigió la demanda dentro del término legalmente establecido para ello y, por tanto, dejar vencer el mismo en silencio.

Teniendo en cuenta que el recurso es improcedente por cuanto por dicha vía el demandante no puede pretender suplir la inactividad y revivir la oportunidad procesal que perdió al obviar la carga de corregir los defectos que oportunamente le fueron advertidos en el auto inadmisorio, la Sala Plena de la Corporación decide confirmar la providencia recurrida.

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. CONFIRMAR el auto de 6 de marzo de 2018, por el cual se rechazo la demanda formulada por el ciudadano Dario Caro Melendez contra el articulo 56 de la Ley 352 de 1997, dentro del expediente con numero de radicacion D-12569.
  2. SEGUNDO. Contra esta providencia no cabe 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.