JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 20, 2025

A- de 2025

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

Reporting justice José Fernando Reyes Cuartas

✓Claimant Delgado D´aste Juan Carlos·Respondent --

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.

Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad Contra Interpretaciones Judiciales
  • Requisitos de claridad, certeza, especificidad, pertinencia y suficiencia
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda
  • Demandante debe efectuar razonamiento mínimo para constatar yerro o arbitrariedad
3 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica.

La demanda se rechazó porque el escrito de corrección no subsanó todas las deficiencias advertidas en el auto de inadmisión, de modo que no satisfizo los requisitos fijados por la jurisprudencia para construir un auténtico cargo de inconstitucionalidad.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación constató que la providencia censurada no incurrió en el yerro endilgado y, por ello, NEGÓ el recurso impetrado.

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 el recurso de súplica presentado por el ciudadano Juan Carlos Delgado D"aste contra el auto del 17 de enero de 2025, mediante el cual la magistrada Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera rechazó la demanda formulada en el expediente D-16290.
  2. SEGUNDO. Proceda la Secretaría General de la Corte Constitucional a comunicarle el contenido de esta decisión a la recurrente, indicándole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. En firme esta decisión, archívese el expediente.
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.