JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)December 3, 2002

A- de 2002

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

Reporting justice Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra

✓Claimant Delcy Bolaños Salazar

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia
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.

2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se remitió el expediente de tutela al Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de Caquetá para que adelante la correspondiente actuación judicial, toda vez que de acuerdo a lo contemplado en el Art. 1º, numeral 1º, inciso 1º del Decreto 1382 de 2000 contempla que “las acciones de tutela que se interpongan contra cualquier autoridad pública del orden nacional, salvo lo dispuesto en el siguiente inciso, serán repartidas para su conocimiento, en primera instancia a los Tribunales Superiores de Distrito Judicial, Administrativos y consejos Seccionales de la Judicatura” y el inciso 5º del mismo numeral señala que “cuando la acción de tutela se promueva contra más de una autoridad y éstas sean de diferente nivel, el reparto se hará al juez de mayor jerarquía, de conformidad con las reglas establecidas en el presente numeral”.

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. REMITIR el expediente de tutela al Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de Caqueta para que adelante la correspondiente actuacion judicial.
  2. Comuniquese,
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 available1
DissentJaime Araujo Rentería
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.
Cited by1

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