JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 10, 2014

A- de 2014

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

Reporting justice Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva

✓Claimant Guido Mauricio Bolaños Mafla·Respondent Sin Información

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.

Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Reiteración sobre elusión de análisis de asuntos de relevancia constitucional como causal de nulidad
Solicitud De Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Improcedencia por cuanto no cumple con los presupuestos materiales de procedencia para declarar la nulidad de la sentencia, en particular se descarta la configuración de la causal de elusión de aná
  • Requisitos de procedencia
2 topics · 3 subtopics · 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-799A/11.

El fundamento principal de la solicitud de nulidad, fue la elusión de análisis de asuntos de relevancia constitucional, por parte de la Sala de Revisión que profirió la sentencia de la referencia.

Al encontrar que los argumentos esgrimidos por el recurrente no cumplen con los presupuestos materiales de procedencia para declarar la nulidad de una sentencia, la Sala Plena de la Corte Constitucional decide NEGAR la solicitud impetrada.

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 la declaracion de nulidad de la Sentencia T-799A de 2011, proferida por la Sala Octava de Revision.
  2. Segundo. Comuniquese la presente providencia al peticionario, con la advertencia de que contra esta decision no procede ningun recurso.
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 available3
DissentMartha Victoria Sáchica MéndezDissentLuis Ernesto Vargas SilvaDissentMaría Victoria Calle Correa
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
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

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