JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 14, 2017

A- de 2017

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

Reporting justice Iván Humberto Escrucería Mayolo

✓Claimant Colpensiones

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)

Solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-525/16.

Colpensiones considera que el referido fallo contrarió el precedente constitucional establecido en varias providencias de la Corporación relativas a: (i) las normas que rigen la procedencia de la acción de tutela; (ii) la definición de familia extensa, hijo de crianza y de las obligaciones de cuidado y protección de los padres que surgen de ese concepto; (iii) la definición de los beneficiarios de las pensiones de sobrevivencia; y (iv) la omisión legislativa absoluta.

Solicitó además que la Corporación tramite el incidente como una nulidad de oficio, con base en lo establecido en los autos 050/00, 062/00, 082/10 y 114/13.

La Sala Plena decide RECHAZAR la nulidad invocada, por cuanto la misma se presentó de forma extemporánea y no cumplió con las excepcionales condiciones que la Corte ha tenido para declarar la nulidad de una sentencia de tutela de oficio.

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. RECHAZAR la nulidad de la sentencia T-525 de 2016, solicitada por la Administradora Colombiana de Pensiones -COLPENSIONES por resultar extemporanea.
  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.

Separate opinions — text available4
ConcurrenceCristina Pardo SchlesingerConcurrenceGloria Stella Ortiz DelgadoConcurrenceIván Humberto Escrucería MayoloConcurrenceCarlos Libardo Bernal Pulido
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.