JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 7, 2017

A- de 2017

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

Reporting justice Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado

✓Claimant Dario

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)

El accionante de la sentencia T-054/17 solicitó a la Corte que antes de resolver una petición de aclaración radicada por la UARIV, tuviera en cuenta el escrito presentado por él en el que reiteraba su requerimiento de iniciar incidente de desacato en contra de esa entidad.

Teniendo en cuenta que la pretensión del actor fue formulada con posterioridad a la expedición de auto que resolvió la solicitud de aclaración invocada por la UARIV, se deniega la misma, por extemporánea.

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. NEGAR la peticion presentada por Dario el 8 de mayo de 2017, consistente en tener en cuenta sus argumentos al momento de fallar la solicitud de aclaracion de la sentencia T-054 de 2017, pues esta fue radicada con posterioridad al Auto 203 del 26 de abril de 2017.
  2. SEGUNDO. Por intermedio de la Secretaria General, REMITIR al Juzgado 16 Administrativo de Oralidad del Circuito Judicial de Bogota, las solicitudes de cumplimiento de la sentencia T-054 de 2017, presentadas por Dario el 8 de abril, 8 de mayo y 31 de mayo de 2017.
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 available4
ConcurrenceJorge Arango MejíaConcurrenceAlfredo Beltrán SierraConcurrenceGloria Stella Ortiz DelgadoDissentAntonio 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.

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.

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