JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 2, 2023

A- de 2023

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

Reporting justice Juan Carlos Cortés González

✓Claimant Rojas Bustos Orlando·Respondent --

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 Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Improcedencia por cuanto el recurso de súplica no presenta argumentos que desvirtúen las razones constitutivas del rechazo de la demanda
2 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica.

La demanda se rechazó porque las deficiencias identificadas en el auto de inadmisión persistieron.

Por no cumplir con la carga argumentativa exigida para discutir el examen de admisibilidad que se realizó en la providencia cuestionada, la Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió RECHAZAR el recurso impetrado.

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 el recurso de súplica interpuesto por Orlando Rojas Bustos en contra del auto de 2 de octubre de 2023, por medio del cual la magistrada Natalia Ángel Cabo rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta contra el artículo 6 de la Ley 2283 de 2023.
  2. SEGUNDO. A través de la Secretaría General de la Corte Constitucional, COMUNICAR esta decisión al recurrente indicándole que contra la misma no proceden recursos.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decisión, archívese 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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.