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 Hector Santaella Quintero E Incoder

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)

Con el presente auto la Sala Plena de la Corte Constitucional dispone la terminación del incidente de recusación presentado en contra del Magistrado Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub en el trámite del expediente D-9344 y, consecuentemente, decide separarlo inmediatamente del conocimiento del mismo.

Igualmente, ordena la remisión del proceso al despacho del Magistrado Alberto Rojas Ríos a quien le corresponde elaborar la respectiva ponencia.

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.

See the operative part (4 points)
  1. Primero. DISPONER la terminación del incidente de recusación presentado por los ciudadanos Jason Alexander Andrade Castro, actuando en representación de Héctor Santaella Quintero, y Ana Marcela Carolina García Carrillo, como apoderada judicial del Instituto Colombiano de Desarrollo Rural INCODER, contra el Magistrado Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, en el trámite del expediente D- 9344.
  2. Segundo. SEPARAR inmediatamente al Magistrado Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub del conocimiento del proceso de control de constitucionalidad D- 9344.
  3. Tercero. Remitir el Expediente D-9344 al despacho del Magistrado Alberto Rojas Ríos, a quien le corresponde elaborar la respectiva ponencia.
  4. Cuarto. Contra esta decisión 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.

Separate opinions — text available2
ConcurrenceJorge Ignacio Pretelt ChaljubConcurrenceJorge Iván Palacio Palacio
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
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.