JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 4, 2003

A- de 2003

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 Maria Zulma Rivera Olarte Vs. Departamento De Caqueta Y Otros

✓
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.

Conflicto De Competencia En Tutela
  • Competencia a prevención y libertad para escoger la especialidad del juez competente
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se ordenó al Tribunal Administrativo del Caquetá que asuma de forma inmediata y sin más dilaciones el conocimiento de la tutela promovida por la ciudadana de la referencia contra el Departamento de Caquetá, el Ministerio de Educación y el Ministerio de Hacienda y Crédito Público, de conformidad con lo afirmado por el Consejo de Estado y según lo previsto en los Arts. 86 de la Constitución y 37 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.

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 Sala Plena de la Corte Constitucional,
  2. RESUELVE:
  3. Ordenar al Tribunal Administrativo del Caqueta que asuma de forma inmediata y sin mas dilaciones el conocimiento de la accion de tutela promovida por la senora Maria Zulma Rivera Olarte contra el Departamento de Caqueta, el Ministerio de Educacion y el Ministerio de Hacienda y Credito Publico.
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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.