JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)February 4, 2003

A- de 2003

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

Reporting justice Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra

✓Claimant Maria Elina Hincapie Leon Vs. Departamento De Caqueta Y Otros

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia
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.

Decreto Reglamentario De Competencia En Tutela
  • Respeto de la competencia a prevención
Conflicto De Competencia En Tutela
  • Competencia a prevención y libertad para elegir la especialidad del juez competente
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se remitió el expediente de tutela al Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de Caquetá para que adelante la correspondiente actuación judicial, por lo anterior, es de anotar que en ningún momento el Decreto 1382 de 2000 restringió la competencia más allá de los parámetros establecidos en los Arts. 1º y 2º.

Así lo señaló el Consejo de Estado.

Por tanto, no le es dable a un juez de tutela restringir el conocimiento de un asunto de tutela por reglas inexistentes como la imposibilidad de interponer la tutela ante un juez de la especialidad del asunto en controversia.

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. REMITIR el expediente de tutela al Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de Caqueta para que adelante la correspondiente actuacion judicial.
  2. Comuniquese,
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.

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.