JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)February 3, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado

✓Claimant Ministerio De Comercio, Industria Y Turismo Y Otro

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.

Impedimento Y Recusacion
  • Casos en los que se considera que los Magistrados no incurren en la causal de haber conceptuado
  • Regulación de causales en asuntos de constitucionalidad
Recusacion
  • No configuración de la causal
  • Alcance de la causal "haber conceptuado sobre la constitucionalidad de la disposición acusada"
2 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Con el presente auto se declara fundada la recusación formulada en contra del Conjuez César Rodríguez Garavito dentro del proceso de la referencia.

En consecuencia, se dispone separar al mencionado conjuez del conocimiento del expediente LAT-438 y ordenar a la secretaría realizar un nuevo sorteo.

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. Declarar fundada la solicitud de recusacion contra el doctor Cesar Rodriguez Garavito en su condicion de conjuez dentro del proceso de la referencia.
  2. Segundo. Separar, a partir de la fecha, al citado conjuez del conocimiento del expediente LAT-438, por las razones expuestas en esta providencia.
  3. Tercero. Ordenar que, por Secretaria General, se sortee un nuevo conjuez para que intervenga en la decision sobre el expediente LAT-438, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el articulo 27 del Decreto 2067 de 1991.
  4. Cuarto. Contra este auto no procede recurso.
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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado
Reporting justice
✓
Alberto Rojas Ríos
Dissenting opinion
Read partial dissent
✓
Jorge Iván Palacio Palacio
Dissenting opinion
Read partial dissent
✓
María Victoria Calle Correa
Dissenting opinion
Read partial dissent
✓
Alejandro Linares Cantillo
Magistrado
✓
Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo
Magistrado
✓
Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub
Magistrado
✓
Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva
Magistrado
✓
Luis Guillermo Guerrero Pérez
Magistrado
Separate opinions — text available3
Partial dissentJorge Iván Palacio PalacioPartial dissentMaría Victoria Calle CorreaPartial dissentAlberto Rojas Ríos
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.