JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 17, 2010

A- de 2010

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

Reporting justice María Victoria Calle Correa

✓Claimant Carlos Alberto Espinosa Pulido

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.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda De Constitucionalidad
  • Procedencia
  • No es oportuno adicionar temas nuevos ni cambios sustancialmente distintos
2 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica interpuesto contra el Auto del 19 de febrero de 2010, proferido por el Magistrado Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva dentro del proceso de la referencia.

Se decide confirmar el auto recurrido en el sentido de rechazar la demanda interpuesta por el peticionario en contra de los artículos 32 y 34 (parciales) de la Ley 643 de 2001.

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. Primero. CONFIRMAR el auto del diecinueve (19) de febrero de dos mil diez (2010), dictado por el Magistrado Sustanciador Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva, en el sentido de rechazar la demanda interpuesta por Carlos Alberto Espinosa Pulido instauro accion publica de inconstitucionalidad contra los articulos 32 y 34 (parciales) de la Ley 643 de 2001 -"Por la cual se fija el regimen propio del monopolio rentistico de juegos de suerte y azar".
  2. Segundo. Comunicar el contenido de esta decision al recurrente.
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.