JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)February 25, 2021

A- de 2021

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

Reporting justice Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera

✓Claimant Miguel Antonio Guillen Gomez

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 Inconstitucionalidad
  • Se confirma por cuanto demandante no corrigió en los términos indicados en el auto inadmisorio
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.

El Magistrado sustanciador rechazó la demanda al considerar que, si bien se había precisado que no se atacaba el artículo 1º de la Ley 17 de 1974 en su integridad, sino solo la expresión “expendedor de drogas”, la acusación continuaba sin superar los problemas de aptitud sustantiva señalados en el auto inadmisorio.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió CONFIRMAR la providencia cuestionada, tras verificar que con el escrito de corrección no se subsanaron las deficiencias identificadas en el auto de inadmisión.

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 en su integridad el Auto del 28 de enero de 2021, proferido por el magistrado sustanciador Alberto Rojas Rios, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por el senor Miguel Antonio Guillen Gomez.
  2. SEGUNDO. A traves de la Secretaria General de la Corte Constitucional, COMUNICAR el contenido de esta decision al demandante, indicandole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decision, ARCHIVAR 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.