JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 13, 2002

A- de 2002

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

Reporting justice Rodrigo Escobar Gil

✓Claimant Marco Tulio Gomez Ochoa

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda
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.

Ley Y Decreto
  • Distinción y control
Consejo De Estado
  • Competencia
  • Inexequibilidad de enumeración taxativa de decretos del Gobierno objeto de control
Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Adición debe contener cargos de inconstitucionalidad
  • Oportunidad de adición
Potestad Reglamentaria
  • Ejecución de leyes
8 topics · 10 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se negó el recurso de súplica presentado por el ciudadano de la referencia contra el auto mediante el cual se decidió rechazar la demanda radicada con el número D-4319, toda vez que la Corte concluyó que no es competente para pronunciarse sobre la demanda de constitucionalidad presentada contra el Decreto 2269 de 1993, de acuerdo a lo establecido en el Art. 6º del Decreto 2067 de 1991.

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. NEGAR el recurso de suplica presentado por el ciudadano Marco Tulio Gomez Ochoa contra el auto del dieciseis de octubre de 2002 mediante el cual se decidio rechazar la demanda radicada con el numero D-4319.
  2. Segundo. ARCHIVESE por Secretaria general el expediente de la referencia.
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.