JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 29, 2018

A- de 2018

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

Reporting justice Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo

✓Claimant Ministerio De Salud Y Proteccion Social

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
  • Requisitos formales y materiales de procedencia
  • Negar por cuanto no se desconoció precedente constitucional
  • Se niega por cuanto no se desconoció la cosa juzgada constitucional
1 topic · 3 subtopics · 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-721/17.

El Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social, en calidad de entidad accionada, adujo que la providencia de la referencia incurrió en un presunto cambio irregular de jurisprudencia y en desconocimiento de la cosa juzgada frente al precedente jurisprudencial estructurado a partir de la sentencia C-239/97.

Al no encontrar acreditada ninguna de las causales invocadas, la Corte decide NEGAR la nulidad pretendida.

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. NEGAR LA NULIDAD formulada por el doctor Luis Gabriel Fernandez Franco, en calidad de Director Tecnico Juridico del Ministerio de Salud y Proteccion Social, contra la sentencia T-721 de 2017, proferida por la Sala Cuarta de Revision de la Corte Constitucional.
  2. SEGUNDO. Comuniquese la presente providencia al doctor Luis Gabriel Fernandez Franco, con la advertencia que contra esta decision no procede ningun recurso.
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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
Reporting justice
Read dissent
✓
Cristina Pardo Schlesinger
Dissenting opinion
Read dissent
✓
Alejandro Linares Cantillo
Concurring opinion
✓
Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
Concurring opinion
Read concurrence
✓
Alberto Rojas Ríos
Magistrado
✓
Carlos Libardo Bernal Pulido
Magistrado
✓
Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado
Magistrado
✓
José Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Magistrado
Separate opinions — text available3
DissentCristina Pardo SchlesingerDissentAntonio José Lizarazo OcampoConcurrenceDiana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
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.