JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 24, 2015

A- de 2015

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Andres Javier Casas Sanz De Santamaria

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)

Recurso de súplica contra el auto que rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad de la referencia, por no aportar el escrito de corrección los argumentos para subsanar argumentativa ni probatoriamente, las falencias presentadas en la demanda y establecidas en el auto de inadmisión.

La Sala Plena decide CONFIRMAR el auto recurrido, luego de constatar que el actor no presentó argumentos sólidos ni diferentes de los expuestos en sus escritos de demanda y de corrección.

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. CONFIRMAR el auto del veintiseis (26) de mayo de dos mil quince (2015), proferido por el magistrado Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, que rechazo la demanda de inconstitucionalidad de la referencia, formulada por el ciudadano Andres Javier Casas Sanz de Santamaria.
  2. SEGUNDO. A traves de la Secretaria General de la Corte, comuniquese el contenido de esta decision al recurrente, indicandole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decision, archivese el expediente.
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.

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.