JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 5, 2025

A- de 2025

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

Reporting justice Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar

✓Claimant Ardila Germán De Ribon Duverney·Respondent --

✓
Topic · hard data
Sin Información
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
  • Requisitos de procedencia
  • Incumplimiento de la carga argumentativa
2 topics · 3 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 la Corte carecía manifiestamente de competencia para conocerla, conforme a lo previsto en el artículo 6 del Decreto 2067 de 1991.

Encontró la Sala Plena de la Corporación que el actor no puso de evidencia que la providencia recurrida hubiese incurrido en un error, omitido un elemento relevante o resultado arbitrario y que, por el contrario, solo se centró en mostrar su inconformismo con la decisión, a partir de las mismas razones que expuso en la acusación inicial.

Con base en lo anterior, se RECHAZÓ la súplica invocada por incumplir el requisito de carga argumentativa.

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 falta de carga argumentativa, el recurso de súplica presentado en contra del Auto del 23 de abril de 2025, proferido por el Magistrado Vladimir Fernández Andrade, por medio del cual se decidió rechazar la demanda.
  2. SEGUNDO. Por intermedio de la Secretaría General de la Corte Constitucional,
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.