JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 12, 1998

A- de 1998

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

Reporting justice Eduardo Cifuentes Muñoz

✓Claimant Organizacion Indigena De Antioquia Oia

✓
Topic · hard data
Competencia De La Corte Constitucional Para Revisar Decisiones Adoptadas Por Los Jueces En El Proceso De Tutela.
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.

Corte Constitucional
  • Competencia para revisar fallos de tutela
Revision Fallo De Tutela
  • Adopción de decisiones necesarias para adecuar el fallo por juez de instancia
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se negó la petición del Ministerio de Ambiente que solicitó a la Corte que “decidan lo que fuere pertinente para que se cumpla lo ordenado por la Alta Corporación en el Auto del 2 de septiembre de 1998.

Lo anterior, consideró esta Corporación que de conformidad con lo establecido en los Art. 86 y 241 de la Constitución y en los Art. 33, 34 y 35 del Decreto 2591 de 1991, la Corte Constitucional únicamente es competente para revisar las decisiones adoptadas por los jueces en el proceso de tutela.

Se informó al peticionario que contra el presente auto no procede recurso alguno.

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. Negar la petición.
  2. Segundo. Informar al peticionario que contra el presente auto no procede recurso alguno.
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.