JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 21, 2009

A- de 2009

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

Reporting justice Jorge Iván Palacio Palacio

✓Claimant Andres Gomez Roldan Y Otro

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra El Auto 278 De 2009 Que Resoslvio La Solicitud De Suspension De Revision De Constitucionalidad De La Ley 1354 De 2009. Considera La Sala Que Tramitar Peticiones Como La Formulada En El Presente Caso Sería Desconocer El Principio De Legalidad De Las Actuaciones Públicas, Como Tambien Las Reglas Del Debido Proceso Judicial.  Se Rechaza Por Improcedente La Solicitud Presentada.
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
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. RECHAZAR por improcedente el recurso de suplica presentado por los ciudadanos Andres Gomez Roldan y Elson Rafael Rodriguez, contra el Auto numero 278 del 22 de septiembre del presente ano, mediante el cual la Sala Plena de la Corte declaro improcedente la solicitud de suspension de la revision de constitucionalidad de la Ley 1354 de 2009.
  2. Notifiquese, cumplase e
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.