JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)December 13, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Aquiles Arrieta Gómez

✓Claimant Guillermo Forero Alvarez

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)

El apoderado de la Asociación Empresarial para el Desarrollo de la Orinoquía (ASORINOQUIA) solicitó a la Corporación que, en atención a la trascendencia, complejidad e importancia de la temática debatida en el proceso de la referencia, se convoque a audiencia pública y se decrete la práctica de unas pruebas.

La Sala Plena decide NEGAR las peticiones formuladas y comunicar al memorialista que si considera que los documentos que menciona sobre las actividades realizadas por las empresas que conforman la Asociación que representa pueden dar un aporte al debate del proceso, puede presentarlos a la mayor brevedad.

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 las solicitudes de realizacion de una audiencia publica en el presente proceso y la peticion de pruebas efectuada por el abogado Guillermo Forero Alvarez.
  2. Segundo. COMUNICAR al abogado Guillermo Forero Alvarez que si considera que los documentos que menciona sobre las actividades realizadas por las empresas que conforman ASORINOQUIA pueden dar un aporte al debate en este proceso puede presentarlos a la mayor brevedad.
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.