JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 19, 2008

A- de 2008

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

Reporting justice Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto

✓Claimant Antony De Jesús Fernández Camargo Vs. Policía Nacional

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia Suscitado Entre El Tribunal Administrativo Del Magdalena Y El Tribunal Superior De Santa Marta. Se Resolvió Remitir El Expediente Contentivo De La Acción De La Referencia Al Primero A Fin De Que Le Dé Trámite Y La Decida.
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.

Juez De Tutela
  • No corresponde determinar a priori contra quienes debe dirigirse la acción
Accion De Tutela Contra Autoridad Del Orden Nacional
  • Competencia del Tribunal Superior, Administrativo y Consejo Seccional de la Judicatura
2 topics · 2 subtopics · 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. Primero. Remitase el expediente contentivo de la accion de tutela propuesta por el ciudadano Anthony de Jesus Fernandez Camargo contra la POLICIA NACIONAL, especificamente contra el Director General de dicha Institucion, al Tribunal Administrativo del Magdalena con funciones de conocimiento, para que le de tramite y decida en forma inmediata.
  2. Segundo. Por Secretaria General COMUNIQUESE al Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Santa Marta -Sala Quinta de Decision Civil- Familia-, la decision adoptada en esta providencia, con el fin de que tenga conocimiento sobre lo aqui resuelto por la Corte Constitucional en relacion con el conflicto de competencia
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.

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.