JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)February 10, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Jose Ernesto Macias Medina

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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de aclaración y complementación de la sentencia C-623/15, formulada por el representante legal de la sociedad Aportes San Isidro S.A.S..

Previamente a decidir, la Sala se pronuncia sobre su conformación para resolver las peticiones que se presentan con posterioridad al momento en que se profiere una sentencia, cuando en la adopción de la misma se convocaron conjueces.

Luego de constatar que el memorialista no promovió la demanda de la referencia, ni intervino en el curso del proceso, es decir que no está legitimado para presentar peticiones en relación con la sentencia mencionada, la Sala Plena decide RECHAZAR los requerimientos de aclaración y complementación formulados.

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 nombre del pueblo y por mandato de la Constitución,
  2. RESUELVE:
  3. Primero. RECHAZAR, por falta de legitimación, la solicitud de aclaración y complementación de la sentencia C-623 de 2015 -expediente D-9344-, formulada por el ciudadano José Ernesto Macías Medina en calidad de representante legal de la sociedad Aportes San Isidro S.A.S.
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.

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.