JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 13, 2017

A- de 2017

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

Reporting justice Luis Guillermo Guerrero Pérez

✓Claimant Aracelly Isabel Ahumada Lozano Y Otro

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-325/15.

El peticionario argumentó la vulneración del debido proceso, el desconocimiento del precedente constitucional, la omisión de la cosa juzgada constitucional, el quebrantamiento de la jerarquía constitucional y la negación del acceso efectivo a la administración de justicia.

Por no satisfacer la carga argumentativa exigida por la jurisprudencia de la Corporación, la Sala Plena decide denegar la nulidad formulada.

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.

See the operative part (4 points)
  1. Primero. DENEGAR la solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-325 de 2015, proferida por la Sala Tercera de Revision de la Corte Constitucional, presentada por el apoderado judicial de la senora Aracelly Isabel Ahumada Lozano y otros.
  2. Segundo. COMUNICAR la presente providencia a las partes involucradas, con la advertencia que contra esta decision no procede ningun recurso.
  3. Tercero. A traves de la Secretaria de esta Corporacion, DEVOLVER el expediente al Juzgado
  4. Septimo. Penal del Distrito Judicial de Barranquilla (Atlantico).
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.