JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 22, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Jorge Iván Palacio Palacio

✓Claimant Diana Dimelza Torres Muñoz Y Otro

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
  • Negar por cuanto no existió vulneración del debido proceso
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 C-088/16.

El incidente se formula con fundamento en presuntas vulneraciones al debido proceso por parte de la Corporación.

Aducen los peticionarios, que la interpretación inconstitucional demandada por los actores no es una apreciación subjetiva, en tanto existen pruebas en torno a que aquella sí está produciendo efectos en el sistema jurídico.

Igualmente argumentan la falta de motivación del fallo, el desconocimiento del deber que tienen los jueces de decretar pruebas de oficio y la aplicación errada del principio pro actione.

Tras concluir que la Corte Constitucional no incurrió en ninguna violación del derecho fundamental al debido proceso, la Sala Plena DENIEGA la nulidad formulada.

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. DENEGAR la nulidad de la sentencia C-088 de 2016, solicitada por Diana Dimelza Torres Munoz y Andres David Salamanca Mejia.
  2. Segundo. 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.

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.