JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 26, 2020

A- de 2020

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Armando Murillo Hurtado

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 Rechazo Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Improcedencia por silencio del actor durante el término de inadmisión
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Inexistencia de argumentación, razonamiento o motivación
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica.

El rechazo se produjo por la tardía radicación de la corrección de la demanda.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación consideró adecuada la apreciación del magistrado sustanciador y, en ese sentido, decidió CONFIRMAR el auto cuestionado.

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 el Auto del 22 de mayo de 2020, por el cual se rechazo la demanda de inconstitucionalidad formulada por el ciudadano Armando Murillo Hurtado contra los literales a) y b) del numeral 7o del articulo 12 de la Ley 2010 de 2019, "[p]or medio de la cual se adoptan normas para la promocion del crecimiento economico, el empleo, la inversion, el fortalecimiento de las finanzas publicas y la progresividad, equidad y eficiencia del sistema tributario, de acuerdo con los objetivos que sobre la materia impulsaron la Ley 1943 de 2018 y se dictan otras disposiciones", dentro del expediente con numero de radicacion D-13676.
  2. SEGUNDO. Contra esta providencia no procede recurso alguno.
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
ConcurrenceAntonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
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.

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.