JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 29, 2000

A- de 2000

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

Reporting justice Alejandro Martínez Caballero

✓Claimant Antonio Cortes Camacho Y Otro

✓
Topic · hard data
Solicitud De Aclaracion De La Sentencia C-964/99.
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.

Corte Constitucional
  • Incompetencia para absolver consultas que formulen los ciudadanos
  • Incompetencia para aclarar y revisar decisiones
1 topic · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se rechazó por improcedente el escrito presentado por los ciudadanos de la referencia mediante el cual solicitó "la aclaración" de la Sentencia C-964/99, toda vez que la Corte no es competente, después de dictar sentencia, para continuar añadiendo elementos a los contenidos de la motivación.

Por lo tanto, es claro que para este caso se ha surtido todo el procedimiento constitucional señalado en el Decreto No. 2067 de 1991 y, adicionalmente ha operado la cosa juzgada constitucional (C.P. art. 243).

Contra esta providencia no procede recurso alguno.

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. RECHAZASE por improcedente el escrito presentado por los ciudadanos Antonio Cortes Camacho y German Coca, mediante el cual solicito "la aclaracion" de la sentencia C-964 de 1999, proferida por esta Corte.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia 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.

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.