JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 4, 2023

A- de 2023

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

Reporting justice Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera

✓Claimant American Crown Group S.A.S.

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.

Solicitud De Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Rechazar por incumplimiento de requisitos
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-186/23.

Según la empresa accionada, el referido fallo incurrió en una violación al debido proceso por indebida valoración de la prueba.

En particular, alegó que la Sala de Revisión cometió un error al valorar los pantallazos de WhatsApp presentados por la actora como prueba de su conocimiento respecto al estado de embarazo al momento de finalizar el contrato.

Tras concluir que los argumentos presentados no satisfacen el requisito de carga argumentativa requerido se RECHAZA el incidente formulado.

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 no cumplir el requisito de carga argumentativa, la solicitud de nulidad presentada por la empresa American Crown Group S.A.S. en contra de la Sentencia T-186 de 2023.
  2. SEGUNDO. COMUNICAR, por intermedio de la Secretaría General de la Corte Constitucional, la presente decisión a las partes, con la advertencia de que 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.

Separate opinions — text available1
ConcurrenceAntonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
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.