JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)January 31, 2001

A- de 2001

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

Reporting justice Luis Eduardo Montealegre Lynett

✓Claimant Armando Escobar Vasquez

✓
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.

2 topics · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se ordenó inaplicar el Art. 1º del Decreto 1382 de 2000 por ser manifiestamente contrario a la Constitución Política.

En consecuencia, se desató el conflicto de competencia que suscitado entre el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo del Valle del Cauca y el Juzgado Octavo Laboral del Circuito de Cali, con ocasión de la tutela instaurada por el actor de la referencia contra la Caja Nacional de Previsión Social, en el sentido de que el competente para conocer de la demanda es el mencionado Tribunal.

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.

See the operative part (4 points)
  1. Primero. Inaplicar, para el presente caso, el articulo 1o del decreto 1382 de 2000 por ser manifiestamente contrario a la Constitucion Politica, conforme a lo expuesto en la parte motiva.
  2. Segundo. Desatar el conflicto de competencia que se ha suscitado entre el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo del Valle del Cauca y el Juzgado
  3. Octavo. Laboral del Circuito de Cali, con ocasion de la accion de tutela instaurada por Armando Escobar Vasquez contra la Caja Nacional de Prevision Social, en el sentido de que el competente para conocer de la demanda es el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo del Valle del Cauca.
  4. Tercero. Remitir al Tribunal Administrativo del Valle del Cauca, el expediente I.C.C. 206 para que adelante la correspondiente actuacion judicial.
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.

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.