JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 21, 2007

A- de 2007

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

Reporting justice Nilson Elías Pinilla Pinilla

✓Claimant Carlos Alberto Maya Restrepo

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra El Auto Del 22 De Febrero De 2007 Proferido Por El Magistrado Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra Que Rechazo La Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad Presentada En Relacion Con El Articulo 21 De La Ley 100 De 1993, Por Presentarse El Fenomeno De La Cosa Juzgada Constitucional, Ademas Que El Rechazo Cobijo Algunas Normas Por Manifiesta Incompetencia De La Corte Constitucional. La Cosa Juzgada Constitucional Implica Que El Pronunciamiento Efectuado Por La Corte No Puede Ser Objeto De Nuevo Debate O Revision Pues Ello Garantiza A La Sociedad La Certeza Sobre El Significado Y Alcance De Las Determinaciones Adoptadas Por La Corte Constitucional. Deniega El Recurso De Suplica Contra El Auto De Rechazo De La Demanda
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.

Convencion Colectiva De Trabajo
  • Incompetencia de la Corte Constitucional para conocer demanda
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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. Denegar el recurso de suplica interpuesto por el ciudadano Carlos Alberto Maya Restrepo, contra el auto proferido el 22 de febrero por el Magistrado sustanciador Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, en el proceso de la referencia.
  2. Segundo. En firme esta providencia, contra la cual no procede recurso alguno, archivese 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.

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.