JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 30, 2014

A- de 2014

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

Reporting justice Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub

✓Claimant Camilo Cordoba Arce

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.

5 topics · 6 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica interpuesto en contra del auto que rechazó la demanda de la referencia, porque los planteamientos esbozados en el escrito de corrección, continuaron sin satisfacer los criterios indicados en el auto de inadmisión.

La Sala Plena encuentra que el recurso impetrado no está llamado a prosperar, puesto que las manifestaciones presentadas por el actor se dirigieron a oponerse a los argumentos que sustentaron el auto de inadmisión, y no contra las razones que llevaron a rechazar el cargo formulado.

Se CONFIRMA el auto recurrido.

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 en todas sus partes el auto del 20 de agosto de 2014, proferido por el despacho de la Magistrada ponente en el proceso D-10326, doctora Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Camilo Cordoba Arce contra el articulo 24 de la Ley 863 de 2003 "por la cual se establecen normas tributarias, aduaneras, fiscales y de control para estimular el crecimiento economico y el saneamiento de las finanzas publicas".
  2. Segundo. 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.

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.