JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 2, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Luz Delia Higuabita Rey Y Otra

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 interpuesto en contra del auto que rechazó la demanda de la referencia, por no haber sido subsanada de acuerdo a los lineamientos establecidos en el auto de inadmisión y persistir el incumplimiento de los requisitos de especificidad, certeza, suficiencia y claridad.

Considera la Sala Plena que la ausencia de cargos de inconstitucionalidad frente a la omisión legislativa relativa formulada por las demandantes, hace imposible que se pueda dar aplicación al principio pro actione.

Con base en lo anterior, 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 del tres (3) de febrero de dos mil dieciseis (2016), mediante el cual el Magistrado Sustanciador Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub rechazo la demanda formulada por las ciudadanas Luz Delia Higuabita Rey y Mary Jaqueline Pena Ardila contra el articulo 206 de la Ley 100 de 1993; el articulo 227 del Decreto - Ley 2663 de 1950; el articulo 23 (parcial) del Decreto 2463 de 2001; el articulo 3 de la Ley 776 de 2002; y, el articulo 142 (parcial) del Decreto 019 de 2012..
  2. SEGUNDO. COMUNICAR el contenido de esta decision a las recurrentes, informandoles que contra ella 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.

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.