JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 1, 2006

A- de 2006

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

Reporting justice Nilson Elías Pinilla Pinilla

✓Claimant Arnulfo De Jesus Vargas Ortiz Vs. Inpec

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia Entre El Tribunal Administrativo De Boyaca Y El Juzgado Segundo De Familia De Tunja. Ordena Remitir El Expediente Al Juzgado Segundo De Familia De Tunja
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.

Accion De Tutela Contra El Inpec
  • Competencia del Juez de Familia
Accion De Tutela Contra Entidades Descentralizadas Por Servicios Del Orden Nacional
  • Conocimiento por jueces de circuito o con categoría de tales en primera instancia
Instituto Nacional Penitenciario Y Carcelario
  • Organo descentralizado por servicios del orden nacional
Providencias De La Corte Constitucional
  • Tendría efectos inter pares donde se inaplique Decreto 1382 de 2000
Sistema Penitenciario Y Carcelario
  • Integración según Ley 65 de 1993
6 topics · 7 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. Remitir, por intermedio de la Secretaria General, el expediente de la referencia al Juzgado
  2. Segundo. (2deg) de Familia de Tunja, para que ejerciendo sus competencias constitucionales y legales, tramite y decida la accion de tutela instaurada por Arnulfo de Jesus Vargas Ortiz contra el Instituto Nacional Penitenciario y Carcelario INPEC.
  3. Informese esta decision a la Sala de Decision Ndeg 1 del Tribunal Administrativo de Boyaca
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.

Separate opinions — text available1
DissentJaime Araujo Rentería
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
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.