JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)February 17, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva

✓Claimant Hermes Cuenca Meneses·Respondent Ley 1564 De 2012 Y No Del 2014

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)

Recurso de súplica contra el auto proferido por el Magistrado Alberto Rojas Ríos para rechazar la demanda fundada en la violación de los artículos 13, 48 y 53 de la Constitución, en razón a la existencia de la cosa juzgada constitucional, al igual que para inadmitirla, respecto a los cargos por desconocimiento del artículo 150-19 Superior, por no cumplir con los requisitos de pertinencia, especificidad y suficiencia.

Luego de analizar el asunto la Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió CONFIRMAR el auto recurrido.

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 14 de diciembre de 2015, proferido por el magistrado Alberto Rojas Ríos, que rechazó parcialmente la demanda formulada por el ciudadano Hermes Cuenca Meneses contra el artículo 14 (parcial) de la Ley 100 de 1993.
  2. SEGUNDO. A través de la Secretaría General de la Corte, comuníquese el contenido de esta decisión al demandante, indicándole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decisión, archívese el expediente.
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.