JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 16, 2015

A- de 2015

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

Reporting justice Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub

✓Claimant Norberto Mateus Herreño Y Otros

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad Contra Ley 1751 De 2015.
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)

Temas a tratar: Recurso de súplica como etapa procesal posterior a la admisión y rechazo de demanda de inconstitucionalidad, Acción pública de inconstitucionalidad contra leyes estatutarias, Control de constitucionalidad de leyes estatutarias, Excepción de constitucionalidad a prohibición de demandar con posterioridad a expedición de ley estatutaria.

Se confirma auto que rechaza demanda

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.

See the operative part (2 points)
  1. Primero. CONFIRMAR en todas sus partes el auto del 15 de mayo de 2015, proferido por el despacho del Magistrado ponente en los procesos D-10712, D-10741 y D-10747, acumulados, doctor Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por los ciudadanos Norberto Mateus Herreno y Elicenia Motta Mantilla (exp. D-10712); William Caballero Caballero y Emilio Buenahora Rueda (exp. D-10741) y Luis Alfonso Rodriguez Rodriguez y Jairo Pinzon Villabona (exp. D-10747) contra la Ley 1751 de 2015 "por medio de la cual se regula el derecho fundamental a la salud y se dictan otras disposiciones".
  2. Segundo. ARCHIVESE 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.

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.