JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)May 4, 2023

A- de 2023

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 Harold Eduardo Sua Montaña.·Respondent --

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 Aclaracion Sentencia De Constitucionalidad
  • Rechazar por incumplir requisito de carga argumentativa
  • Requisitos
1 topic · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de aclaración de la Sentencia C-055/22.

El peticionario pretende que la Corporación se pronuncie respecto de la competencia del conjuez Julio Andrés Ossa Santamaría para participar en la decisión adoptada en la precitada providencia.

Igualmente, solicitó aclaración respecto del sentido de las expresiones del resolutivo segundo y cómo las mismas expresiones se articulan con el margen de configuración legislativa y potestad reglamentaria de las entidades respectivas a fin de evitar que las mismas contravengan esas fijaciones Por no cumplir con el requisito de carga argumentativa y por no tener la Corte competencias consultivas, se RECHAZA por improcedente las peticiones formuladas por el ciudadano Harold Eduardo Sua Montaña.

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 (24 points)
  1. Primero. RECHAZAR por improcedente la solicitud de aclaración de la Sentencia C-055 de 2022, presentada por el ciudadano Harold Eduardo Sua Montaña, por las razones expuestas en la parte motiva.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia no proceden recursos.
  3. Notifíquese y cúmplase,
  4. DIANA FAJARDO RIVERA
  5. Presidenta
  6. NATALIA ÁNGEL CABO
  7. Magistrada
  8. JUAN CARLOS CORTÉS GONZÁLEZ
  9. Magistrado
  10. Con impedimento aceptado
  11. JORGE ENRIQUE IBÁÑEZ NAJAR
  12. Magistrado
  13. ALEJANDRO LINARES CANTILLO
  14. Magistrado
  15. Con impedimento aceptado
  16. ANTONIO JOSÉ LIZARAZO OCAMPO
  17. Magistrado
  18. PAOLA ANDREA MENESES MOSQUERA
  19. Magistrada
  20. CRISTINA PARDO SCHLESINGER
  21. Magistrada
  22. JOSE FERNANDO REYES CUARTAS
  23. Magistrado
  24. MARTHA VICTORIA SÁCHICA MÉNDEZ
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
✓
Alejandro Linares Cantillo
Impedido
✓
Cristina Pardo Schlesinger
Magistrado
✓
Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
Presidente
✓
Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar
Magistrado
✓
José Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Magistrado
✓
Juan Carlos Cortés González
Impedido
✓
Natalia Ángel Cabo
Magistrado
✓
Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera
Magistrado
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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
← cites 0cited by 1 →A. 661/23A. 1274/24A. 1274/242024
constitutional review unification tutela
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by1

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.