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 Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa

✓Claimant Mauro Dario Jaimes Contreras

✓
Topic · hard data
Incidente De Desacato De La Sentencia T-772/03 Promovido Ante La Corte Constitucional. De Conformidad Con Los Dispuesto En El Articulo 52 Del Decreto 2591 De 1991, Corresponde Al Juez De Primera Instancia Dentro De Los Procesos De Tutela Conocer De Los Incidentes De Desacato De Sus Ordenes Y Adoptar Las Medidas A Que Haya Lugar. Rechazar Por Improcedente La Solicitud
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.

Juez De Primera Instancia
  • Competencia para conocer incidente de desacato
Cumplimiento Fallo De Tutela
  • Corresponde al juez de primera instancia y por excepción a Salas de Revisión de la Corte Constitucional
Incidente De Desacato
  • Improcedencia por ser competencia de juez Penal Municipal
3 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 (4 points)
  1. Primero. RECHAZAR por improcedente la solicitud de iniciar incidente de desacato promovida por el señor Mauro Darío Jaimes Contreras.
  2. Segundo. INFORMAR al señor Mauro Darío Jaimes Contreras que el juez competente para conocer del incidente de desacato de la sentencia T-772 de 2003 es el Juez Setenta y Dos Penal Municipal de Bogotá.
  3. Tercero. CORRER TRASLADO de la petición presentada por el señor Mauro Darío Jaimes Contreras al Juez Setenta y Dos Penal Municipal de Bogotá D.C.
  4. Comuníquese,
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.