JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 17, 2005

A- de 2005

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

Reporting justice Jaime Araujo Rentería

✓Claimant Carlos Moncada Zapata

✓
Topic · hard data
Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad Contra El Articulo 2 (Parcial) De La Ley 901 De 2004. Rechazar Por Improcedente La Solicitud Presentada En Representación De La Contaduria General De La Nación
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.

Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Error al haberse indicado como artículo demandado uno distinto al que se trascribió en la demanda
Sentencia De Constitucionalidad
  • Improcedencia de aclaración por inexistencia de error
  • Improcedencia de adición
2 topics · 3 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.

See the operative part (21 points)
  1. RECHAZAR POR IMPROCEDENTE la solicitud presentada por el ciudadano Juan Carlos Moncada Zapata en representación de la Contaduría General de la Nación.
  2. Notifíquese, cúmplase y archívese la actuación con el expediente respectivo.
  3. MANUEL JOSE CEPEDA ESPINOSA
  4. Presidente
  5. JAIME ARAUJO RENTERIA
  6. Magistrado
  7. ALFREDO BELTRAN SIERRA
  8. Magistrado
  9. JAIME CORDOBA TRIVIÑO
  10. Magistrado
  11. RODRIGO ESCOBAR GIL
  12. Magistrado
  13. MARCO GERARDO MONROY CABRA
  14. Magistrado
  15. HUMBERTO SIERRA PORTO
  16. Magistrado
  17. ALVARO TAFUR GALVIS
  18. Magistrado
  19. CLARA INES VARGAS HERNANDEZ
  20. Magistrada
  21. MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA DE MONCALEANO
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
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.