JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 24, 2002

A- de 2002

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

Reporting justice Clara Inés Vargas Hernández

✓Claimant Gumersindo Popo Escobar

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia
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.

Conflicto De Competencia En Tutela
  • Jueces de distintos distritos judiciales
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se abstuvo de resolver el conflicto de competencias suscitados entre el Juzgado 1° Promiscuo Municipal de Candelaria y el Juzgado 26 Penal Municipal de Santiago de Cali, toda vez que es la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casación Penal, la autoridad competente para decidir el conflicto de competencias suscitado entre los dos despachos judiciales mencionados por ser el superior jerárquico común.

En consecuencia, se remite el expediente a la citada Corte para lo de su competencia.

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. ABSTENERSE de resolver el conflicto de competencias suscitados entre el Juzgado 1deg Promiscuo Municipal de Candelaria y el Juzgado 26 Penal Municipal de Santiago de Cali.
  2. Segundo. DECLARAR que la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casacion Penal, es la autoridad competente para decidir el conflicto de competencias suscitado entre el Juzgado 1deg Promiscuo Municipal de Candelaria y el Juzgado 26 Penal Municipal de Santiago de Cali.
  3. Tercero. REMITIR, por medio de la Secretaria General de esta Corporacion, el envio del expediente a la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casacion Penal, para lo de su 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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
Alfredo Beltrán Sierra
Magistrado
✓
Alvaro Tafur Galvis
Magistrado
✓
Clara Ines Vargas Hernandez
Magistrado
✓
Eduardo Montealegre Lynett
Magistrado
✓
Jaime Araujo Rentería
Magistrado
Read dissent
✓
Jaime Córdoba Triviño
Magistrado
✓
Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa
Magistrado
✓
Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra
Presidente
✓
Rodrigo Escobar Gil
Magistrado
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.

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.