JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 6, 2018

A- de 2018

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

Reporting justice Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera

✓Claimant Luis Gerardo Lopez Lasso

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.

Solicitud De Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Requisitos formales y materiales de procedencia
  • Improcedencia por falta de carga argumentativa
1 topic · 2 subtopics · 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-560/17.

El accionante adujo que la Sala de Revisión quebrantó directamente el artículo o 29 de la Constitución Política al omitir valorar pruebas relevantes para abordar en forma adecuada la discusión constitucional y, como consecuencia de ese yerro, enmarcr el problema planteado en un asunto relacionado con el Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial cuando lo correcto era hacerlo desde el principio de buena fe y el respeto por el acto propio.

Por la insuficiencia de carga argumentativa, se dispone RECHAZAR la nulidad invocada.

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 la solicitud de nulidad formulada por el señor Luis Gerardo López Lasso contra la Sentencia T-560 de 2017.
  2. SEGUNDO. ORDENAR que se comunique la presente providencia a los interesados, con la advertencia de que contra esta decisión 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.

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.