JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)January 29, 2014

A- de 2014

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

Reporting justice Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo

✓Claimant Roberto Horacio Torres Serrano·Respondent 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.

Solicitud De Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Negar por cuanto no existió vulneración del debido proceso
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 de la sentencia T-137/10.

Argumenta el peticionario que la Sala de Revisión, al proferir el fallo de la referencia, desconoció el precedente de la Corporación sentado en las sentencias SU120/03 y C-862/06, respecto al reconocimiento de la indexación de la primera mesada pensional.

Luego de reiterar las reglas jurisprudenciales sobre los requisitos formales y materiales de procedencia de la nulidad contra las sentencias de la Corporación y de analizar la solicitud en concreto, la Sala Plena concluyó que no existió la vulneración del debido proceso alegada y decidió NEGAR la nulidad impetrada.

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. NEGAR la solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-137 de 2010 proferida por la Sala Cuarta de Revision.
  2. Segunda.- NOTIFIQUESE la presenta providencia al solicitante e informesele que contra la misma no procede recurso alguno.
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.

Separate opinions — text available3
ConcurrenceGabriel Eduardo Mendoza MarteloConcurrenceJorge Iván Palacio PalacioConcurrenceMaría Victoria Calle Correa
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.