JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 1, 2021

A- de 2021

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Rene Horacio Torres Lopez

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
  • Se confirma por caducidad de la acción pública de inconstitucionalidad
1 topic · 1 subtopic · 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 en relación con el cargo formulado por la vulneración del principio de consecutividad e identidad flexible, por cuanto había operado el fenómeno de la caducidad de la acción pública de inconstitucionalidad.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación coincidió con los argumentos del despacho sustanciador y 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.

  1. PRIMERO. CONFIRMAR el auto de 10 de mayo de 2021, proferido por el despacho sustanciador en el proceso D-14218, mediante el cual se rechazo el cargo formulado contra el articulo 336 de la Ley 1955 de 2019, por violacion de los principios de consecutividad e identidad flexible por los motivos expuestos en la parte motiva de esta providencia.
  2. SEGUNDO. A traves de la Secretaria General de la Corte Constitucional, comuniquese el contenido de esta decision al demandante, indicandole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decision, archivese 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.

Separate opinions — text available1
ConcurrenceGloria Stella Ortiz Delgado
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.