JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 27, 2015

A- de 2015

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

Reporting justice Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva

✓Claimant Alba Nelly Bonilla Mendez

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 contra auto del 20 de agosto de 2015, mediante el cual se adoptaron algunas decisiones con respecto a peticiones formuladas sobre el cumplimiento de las órdenes impartidas en la sentencia T-740/12.

La memorialista argumentó violación del derecho fundamental al debido proceso y vulneración de los principios de publicidad y confianza legítima.

La Sala de Revisión decidió rechazar por IMPROCEDENTE la nulidad pedida.

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 (10 points)
  1. PRIMERO. RECHAZAR POR IMPROCEDENTE la nulidad solicitada por la ciudadana Alba Nelly Bonilla Méndez, en contra del Auto del veinte (20) de agosto de dos mil quince (2015), proferido por el Despacho del Magistrado Sustanciador de la Sentencia T-740 de 2012.
  2. SEGUNDO. Contra la presente providencia no procede recurso alguno.
  3. Comuníquese a la peticionaria y cúmplase,
  4. MARÍA VICTORIA CALLE CORREA
  5. Magistrada
  6. MYRIAM ÁVILA ROLDÁN
  7. Magistrada ( E )
  8. LUIS ERNESTO VARGAS SILVA
  9. Magistrado Ponente
  10. MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA MENDEZ
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.