JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)February 24, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Alejandro Linares Cantillo

✓Claimant Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo

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.

Impedimento Y Recusacion De Magistrado De La Corte Constitucional
  • Rechazar impedimento para conocer Acto Legislativo sobre Reforma de Equilibrio de Poderes y Reajuste Institucional
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

El magistrado Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, con fundamento en los artículos 25 y 26 del Decreto 2067 de 1991, manifestó su impedimento frente al conocimiento y trámite del expediente de la referencia.

Al concluir que el presente asunto no existe diferenciación con los impedimentos presentados por los magistrados Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado y Alejandro Linares Cantillo, la Sala Plena decide acoger la fundamentación reiterada en los Autos 032-16 y 058-16.

Con base en lo anterior, decide RECHAZAR el impedimento formulado.

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. En merito de lo expuesto, la Sala Plena de la Corte Constitucional
  2. RESUELVE
  3. RECHAZAR el impedimento manifestado por el magistrado Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, para intervenir y decidir sobre la demanda de inconstitucionalidad contra los articulos 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 y 26 del Acto Legislativo 02 de 2015, en el marco del proceso correspondiente al expediente D-10947.
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.

Separate opinions — text available1
ConcurrenceGloria Stella Ortiz Delgado
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
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.