JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)May 28, 2002

A- de 2002

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

Reporting justice Rodrigo Escobar Gil

✓Claimant Leonor Constanza Aguirre Gomez

✓
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
  • Asunción por Corte Constitucional cuando no existe superior jerárquico común
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se inaplicó el Art. 1° del Decreto 1382 de julio 12 de 2000, por ser contrario a la Constitución Política, en relación con la tutela promovida por la accionante de la referencia.

En consecuencia, se remitió el expediente y dirimió el conflicto planteado, al decidir que es el Tribunal Administrativo del Valle del Cauca, el competente para conocer el proceso de tutela.

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 (3 points)
  1. PRIMERO. Inaplicar, en relacion con la accion de tutela promovida por Leonor Constanza Aguirre Gomez, el articulo 1deg del Decreto 1382 de julio 12 de 2000, por ser contrario a la Constitucion Politica conforme a lo expuesto en la parte motiva de este auto.
  2. SEGUNDO. Decidir el conflicto planteado, en el sentido que el Tribunal Administrativo del Valle del Cauca, es competente para conocer el proceso de tutela de la referencia.
  3. TERCERO. Remitir, por medio de la Secretaria General de esta Corporacion, el expediente al Tribunal Administrativo del Valle del Cauca, para lo de su competencia.
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

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