JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)January 22, 1998

A- de 1998

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

Reporting justice Vladimiro Naranjo Mesa

✓Claimant Perez Suarez Miguel Angel·Respondent Consejo De Estado Y Sala Plena De Lo Contencioso Administrativo

✓
Topic · hard data
Solicitud De Medidas Provisionales.
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.

Medidas Provisionales Para Proteger Un Derecho
  • Inexistencia de circunstancias para su procedencia
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se denegó la petición elevada por el apoderado judicial del accionante, tendiente a que se decreten medidas provisionales en el proceso de la referencia.

Esta Corporación, argumentó que la inconformidad del peticionario radicó en una discrepancia interpretativa de algunas normas constitucionales, entre la jurisprudencia del Consejo de Estado y la de la Corte Constitucional, además, explicó que lo solicitado no representa un perjuicio que no pueda remediarse, ni un abrupto y arbitrario desconocimiento de la Constitución y la Ley que ameriten la aplicación de las medidas provisionales de que trata el Art. 7° del Decreto 2591 de 1991.

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. RESUELVE
  2. DENEGAR la peticion elevada por el apoderado judicial del doctor Miguel Angel Perez Suarez, tendiente a que se decreten medidas provisionales en el proceso de la referencia.
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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

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