JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 30, 2002

A- de 2002

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

Reporting justice Rodrigo Escobar Gil

✓Claimant Cesar Hernando Pastas Villacres

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto De Abril 2/02
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.

6 topics · 6 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se confirmó en todas sus partes el auto proferido por el despacho del magistrado ponente en el proceso D-3976, mediante el cual se rechazó la demanda presentada por el ciudadano de la referencia en contra del Art. 36 de la Ley 336 de 1996, lo anterior, porque la Corte en ejercicio de la jurisdicción constitucional, sólo puede pronunciarse sobre normas que hagan parte del ordenamiento jurídico y por consiguiente carece de competencia para fallar sobre la constitucionalidad de disposiciones que hayan sido derogadas, a menos que las mismas continúen produciendo efectos para el momento en que deba adoptarse la decisión, o sea previsible que puedan producirlos hacia el futuro.

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. Por las razones estudiadas, CONFIRMAR en todas sus partes el Auto del 2o de abril de 2002, proferido por el despacho del magistrado ponente en el proceso D-3976, doctor Jaime Cordoba Trivino, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Cesar Hernando Pastas Villacres en contra del articulo 36 de la Ley 336 de 1996.
  2. Segundo. ARCHIVESE el expediente.
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.