JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)January 25, 2005

A- de 2005

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

Reporting justice Rodrigo Escobar Gil

✓Claimant Fernando Antonio Fernandez Peña

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia Entre Tribunal Administrativo Del Valle Del Cauca Y El Juzgado Septimo Civil Del Circuito De Cali. Remitase Expediente Al Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Del Valle Del Cauca
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.

Accion De Tutela Contra Registraduria Nacional
  • Competencia de Tribunales Superiores, Contencioso Administrativos y Consejos Seccionales de la Judicatura
Conflicto De Competencia En Tutela
  • Autoridad pública del orden nacional
3 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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. En merito de lo expuesto, la Sala Plena de la Corte Constitucional, en ejercicio de sus atribuciones constitucionales y legales,
  2. RESUELVE
  3. Remitase el expediente contentivo de la accion de tutela promovida por Fernando Antonio Fernandez Pena, contra la Registraduria Nacional del Estado Civil al Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo del Valle del Cauca para que la tramite y decida en forma inmediata.
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 available1
DissentJaime Araujo Rentería
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.

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.