JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)February 4, 2009

A- de 2009

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

Reporting justice Clara Elena Reales Gutiérrez

✓
Topic · hard data
Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad Contra El Artículo 108 De La Ley 906 De 2004. Se Resolvió Abstenerse De Emitir Pronunciamiento Sobre Snedos Impedimentos Presentandos Por El Doctor Edgardo José Maya Villazón  Y El Doctro Carlos Arturo Gómez Pavajeau Para Emitir Pronunciamiento De Fondo Respecto De La Constitucionalidad De La Norma Acusada De La Ley 906 De 2004.
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.

3 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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 (3 points)
  1. Primero. ABSTENERSE de emitir un pronunciamiento sobre el impedimento presentado por el doctor Edgardo Jose Maya Villazon, para emitir concepto de fondo respecto de la constitucionalidad de la norma acusada de la Ley 906 de 2004.
  2. Segundo. ABSTENERSE de emitir un pronunciamiento sobre el impedimento presentado por el doctor Carlos Arturo Gomez Pavajeau, para emitir concepto de fondo respecto de la constitucionalidad de la norma acusada de la Ley 906 de 2004.
  3. Tercero. ORDENAR por Secretaria General, que una vez levantada la suspension, se REMITA el expediente al despacho del senor Procurador General de la Nacion, doctor Alejandro Ordonez Maldonado para que proceda a rendir, en el tiempo restante, el concepto de fondo a que hace referencia el articulo 278-5 de la Carta.
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.