JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 11, 2015

A- de 2015

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

Reporting justice Luis Guillermo Guerrero Pérez

✓Claimant Armando Galan Valencia

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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se solicitó a la Corporación explicar de manera especial la sentencia T-379/13.

Para la Corte, la petición del memorialista no corresponde a una solicitud de aclaración, pues la misma no tiene como propósito resolver dudas sobre conceptos o frases que aparecen consignadas en la parte resolutiva de la mencionada sentencia.

La Sala recuerda que contra las sentencias de la Corte Constitucional no procede recurso alguno, como tampoco ampliaciones o revisiones, y menos aún la posibilidad de brindar conceptos sobre su alcance, pues, en los términos del citado artículo 241 del Texto Superior, la Corporación ejerce una función exclusivamente jurisdiccional y no consultiva.

La petición formulada se RECHAZA, por improcedente.

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 improcedente la solicitud presentada el 9 de diciembre de 2014 por el senor Armando Galan Valencia, mediante la cual pidio una explicacion especial de la Sentencia T-379 de 2013.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia no procede ningun recurso.
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.