JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 28, 1995

A- de 1995

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

Reporting justice Hernando Herrera Vergara

✓Claimant Sofia Sanchez Ruiz Y Otra

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia De Tutela. Competencia De Tutela A Prevencion.
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 declaró que el Tribunal Administrativo de Santander si tiene competencia para avocar el conocimiento de la tutela ante él instaurada, toda vez que en primera instancia son competentes para conocer de la acción de tutela, los jueces o tribunales con jurisdicción en el lugar donde ocurriere la violación o la amenaza que motive la solicitud.

En consecuencia, la Corte ordenó enviar el expediente al mencionado Tribunal para que resuelva la acción de tutela interpuesta por las accionantes.

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. R E S U E L V E :
  2. PRIMERO. DECLARAR que el Tribunal Administrativo de Santander si tiene competencia para avocar el conocimiento de la tutela ante el instaurada.
  3. SEGUNDO. ORDENAR el envio del expediente al Tribunal Administrativo de Santander, para que resuelva la accion de tuela interpuesta por las ciudadanas SOFIA SANCHEZ RUIZ y MARIA LOURDES GARCIA C. contra el Alcalde Muicipal de Puente Nacional, Santander, por las razones expuestas en esta providencia.
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.