JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 3, 2017

A- de 2017

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

Reporting justice Alejandro Linares Cantillo

✓Claimant Argemiro Cabarcas

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
  • Negar por cuanto el actor no satisfizo las cargas mínimas exigidas por la Corte para abordar el estudio de fondo
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 contra la Sentencia T-476/|16.

El representante legal de los Consejos Comunitarios de las Comunidades Negras y Afrocolombianas del municipio de Repelón (Atlántico), fundamentó el incidente en la violación del debido proceso por desconocimiento del precedente.

Encontró la Corte que el nulicitante no satisfizo la carga argumentativa mínima, en tanto se limitó a citar sentencias anteriores sin explicar su pertinencia y sin identificar el alcance de la ratio decidendi empleada en los casos análogos, ni en qué sentido ella era relevante para resolver el problema jurídico planteado en la sentencia cuya nulidad se invoca.

Se RECHAZA.

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 de la Sentencia T-475 de 2016, presentada por Argemiro Cabarcas, en su calidad de representante Legal de los Consejos Comunitarios de las comunidades afrocolombianas del municipio de Repelón, Atlántico.
  2. SEGUNDO. NOTIFÍQUESE esta providencia al solicitante e infórmesele que contra la misma 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 available1
ConcurrenceGloria Stella Ortiz Delgado
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.