JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)December 5, 2001

A- de 2001

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

Reporting justice Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa

✓Claimant Carlos Eduardo Muñoz Davila

✓
Topic · hard data
Solicitud Nulidad Contra Sentencia T-260/99
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.

Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Término de tres días contados a partir de notificación de fallo
Nulidad Sentencia De Revision De Tutela
  • Improcedencia por no proponerse en término
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se rechazó la solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-260/99, toda vez que el ciudadano presentó la solicitud con un período de más de 30 meses y al respecto la Corte Constitucional explicó que las solicitudes de nulidad que se adelanten contra los fallos de esta Corporación, deben ser adelantados dentro de un preciso término de tres días luego de la notificación de los mismos, razón por la cual resulta claro que la petición es improcedente.

Contra la presente providencia no procede recurso alguno.

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. RECHAZAR la solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-260 de 1999 proferida por la Sala Tercera de Revision, por las razones expuestas en esta providencia.
  2. Segundo. Contra la presente 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.

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

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