JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)May 25, 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 Bernal Cano Natalia·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 Nulidad Auto De Tramite De La Corte Constitucional
  • Rechazar por improcedente
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de nulidad del auto que inadmitió la demanda de inconstitucionalidad de la referencia.

La memorialista pidió de manera concreta apartar al magistrado Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo de sus “documentos” y declarar la nulidad del trámite del proceso en auto de Sala Plena.

Teniendo en cuenta que el recurso se interpuso contra un auto de trámite y que esto resuelta ser una petición manifiestamente improcedente, se decidió RECHAZARLO de plano.

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 (23 points)
  1. Primero. RECHAZAR por improcedente la solicitud de nulidad presentada en contra del auto de 18 de abril de 2023 mediante el cual se inadmitió la demanda de inconstitucionalidad presentada por la ciudadana Natalia Bernal Cano en contra del artículo 90 del Código Civil.
  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. JORGE ENRIQUE IBÁÑEZ NAJAR
  11. Magistrado
  12. ALEJANDRO LINARES CANTILLO
  13. Magistrado
  14. Con impedimento aceptado
  15. ANTONIO JOSÉ LIZARAZO OCAMPO
  16. Magistrado
  17. PAOLA ANDREA MENESES MOSQUERA
  18. Magistrada
  19. CRISTINA PARDO SCHLESINGER
  20. Magistrada
  21. JOSE FERNANDO REYES CUARTAS
  22. Magistrado
  23. 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
Magistrado
✓
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. 994/23A. 1940/23A. 1940/232023
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.