JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 30, 2017

A- de 2017

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

Reporting justice Iván Humberto Escrucería Mayolo

✓Claimant Alcaldesa De Chinacota

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-073/17.

La Alcaldesa del Municipio de Chinácota formuló el incidente contra la providencia de la referencia, alegando que es contraria al precedente constitucional establecido en las Sentencias C-192/16, C-931/706 y T-445/16, en relación con la autonomía de las entidades territoriales sobre usos del suelo, esquema de ordenamiento territorial y prevalencia de las normas de ordenamiento territorial frente al derecho de propiedad.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación considera que el fallo recurrido desconoció el precedente constitucional y violó el debido proceso.

A pesar de cuestionar el numeral cuarto de la parte resolutiva, la Sala Plena declara la NULIDAD de la Sentencia T-073/17, porque los motivos de dicho aparte terminaron irradiando el conjunto de la decisión, dada la conexidad que presentan sus numerales.

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. Declarar la nulidad de la sentencia T-073 de 2017, presentada por la alcaldia de Chinacota.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia 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

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.