JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 27, 2014

A- de 2014

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 Maricely Parada Abril Y Otros

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.

Recurso De Suplica Frente A Auto Que Rechaza Demanda Contra Ley Que Regula La Cuota De Compensacion Militar
  • Se confirma rechazo de la demanda por incumplimiento de los requisitos de la acción de inconstitucionalidad
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 interpuesto en contra del auto que dispuso el rechazo de la demanda de la referencia, por persistir en el escrito de corrección, la falta de especificidad, pertinencia y suficiencia en la formulación de los cargos.

La Sala Plena decide CONFIRMAR el auto recurrido, toda vez que los peticionarios no lograron demostrar la existencia de un yerro o una arbitrariedad en el mismo.

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. En merito de lo expuesto, la Sala Plena de la Corte Constitucional
  2. RESUELVE:
  3. CONFIRMAR el auto del 5 de agosto de 2014, proferido por el magistrado Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo dentro del expediente D-10302, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por la ciudadana y los ciudadanos Maricely Parada Abril, Alejandro Parra Macias, Diego Fernando Carreno Neira, Diego Armando Quiroga Bonilla, Mario Andres Hurtado Cardozo y Julian Andres Ovalle Fierro en contra del paragrafo 1o del articulo 1o de la ley 1184 de 2008.
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.