JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 3, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Federacion Nacional De Cafeteros De Colombia

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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de nulidad de la sentencia T-611/15 formulada por la Federación Nacional de Cafeteros.

La petición se fundamentó en el desconocimiento del precedente establecido en las Sentencias SU.1073/12, SU.131/13 y SU.415/15.

Se alegó que en los citados fallos de unificación se examinaron casos en los cuales las pensiones se reconocieron con base en dos condiciones: 1º.

El tiempo de servicios laborado antes de la entrada en vigor de la Constitución de 1991 y, 2º.

La edad por regla general cumplida con posterioridad a dicha norma.

Tras constatar que la petición no cumplió con el requisito de oportunidad, la Sala Plena decidió RECHAZARLA, 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. RECHAZAR por extemporanea la solicitud de nulidad formulada por la FEDERACION NACIONAL DE CAFETEROS contra la sentencia T- 611 de 2015 proferida por la Sala Octava de Revision.
  2. SEGUNDO. ADVERTIR al solicitante que contra esta decision no procede recurso alguno.
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 available2
ConcurrenceAlberto Rojas RíosConcurrenceAlejandro Linares Cantillo
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.