JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 31, 2019

A- de 2019

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 Argemiro Bayona Bayona

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
  • Procede únicamente respecto del auto que rechaza la admisión de la demanda de inconstitucionalidad
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Se confirma por cuanto demandante no corrigió en los términos indicados en el auto inadmisorio
2 topics · 2 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 fue rechazada luego que se determinara que la corrección no fue adecuada y, por tanto, no alcanzó a subsanar las deficiencias argumentativas evidenciadas en el auto de inadmisión.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió negar el recurso y CONFIRMAR la providencia cuestionada.

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 26 de junio de 2019, proferido por la Magistrada Cristina Pardo Schlesinger, dentro del proceso D-13222, por medio del cual se rechazo la demanda instaurada por el ciudadano Argemiro Bayona Bayona contra el articulo 218 (parcial) del Codigo Penal, conforme a las consideraciones expuestas en esta providencia.
  2. Segundo. Proceda la Secretaria General de la Corte Constitucional a comunicar el contenido de esta decision a los recurrentes.
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.