JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 10, 2024

A- de 2024

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

Reporting justice Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera

✓Claimant Sosa Ojeda Jaime Andrés Y Otra·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.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda
  • Demandante debe efectuar razonamiento mínimo para constatar yerro o arbitrariedad
Recurso De Suplica Contra Rechazo Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Incumplimiento de la carga argumentativa
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica.

La demanda se rechazó porque no se superaron los errores advertidos en el auto de inadmisión.

Por no cumplir con el requisito de carga argumentativa mínima necesaria para abordar el estudio de fondo del recurso impetrado, la Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió RECHAZARLO.

Frente al particular concluyó la Corte que recurrentes no desarrollaron, ni siquiera mínimamente, los errores, olvidos o arbitrariedades que pudieran ser atribuibles al auto cuestionado.

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 por improcedente el recurso de súplica formulado en contra del Auto del 11 de marzo de 2024, proferido por el magistrado Juan Carlos Cortés González dentro del expediente D-15.676, el cual, a su vez, rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad del ciudadano Jaime Andrés Sosa Ojeda y la ciudadana Aura Juliana Chacón Barrera contra el artículo 400 (parcial) del Código de Procedimiento Penal.
  2. SEGUNDO. A través de la secretaría general de la Corte Constitucional, COMUNICAR el contenido de esta decisión a los demandantes, indicándoles que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decisión, ARCHIVAR el expediente D-15.676.
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
✓
Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
Reporting justice
✓
Cristina Pardo Schlesinger
Dissenting opinion
Read dissent
✓
Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
Magistrado
✓
Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar
Magistrado
✓
José Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Presidente
✓
Juan Carlos Cortés González
Magistrado
✓
Natalia Ángel Cabo
Magistrado
✓
Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera
Magistrado
✓
Vladimir Fernández Andrade
Magistrado
Separate opinions — text available1
DissentCristina Pardo Schlesinger
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.