JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)February 18, 2003

A- de 2003

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant Juan Evangelista Avila Mahecha Vs. Consejo Seccional De La Judicatura De Cundinamarca

✓
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 Para Reparto De Accion De Tutela
  • Inaplicación para el caso por cuanto las decisiones del Consejo Superior de la Judicatura Sala Disciplinaria se profieren en Sala Plena
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se remitió el expediente contentivo de la tutela promovida por el ciudadano de la referencia al Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Bogotá –Sala Penal-, para que tramite y decida en forma inmediata, toda vez que para el presente caso se dará aplicación a los Arts. 86 de la Constitución Política y 37 del Decreto 2591 de 1991, que autorizan al actor a dirigir la acción de tutela a cualquier juez para que él conozca de la misma.

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. En merito de lo expuesto, la Corte Constitucional, en Sala Plena,
  2. RESUELVE:
  3. Remitase el expediente contentivo de la accion de tutela promovida por el ciudadano Juan Evangelista Avila Mahecha, al Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Bogota -Sala Penal-, para que la tramite y decida en forma inmediata.
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.