JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 22, 2006

A- de 2006

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant Luis Enrique Pantano Socha Y Otros Vs. Alcaldia Mayor De Bogota Y Otros

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia Entre El Tribunal Superior De Bogota Sala Penal, Consejo De Estado Sala De Lo Contencioso Administrativo Seccion Cuarta Y El Juzgado Veinticuatro Penal Municipal De Bogota. Ordena Remitir El Expediente Al Juzgado Veinticuatro Penal Municipal De Bogota
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.

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.

See the operative part (3 points)
  1. En merito de lo expuesto, la Corte Constitucional, en Sala Plena,
  2. RESUELVE:
  3. Remitase el expediente contentivo de la accion de tutela promovida por los senores Luis Enrique Pantano Socha, Jose Leonidas Arevalo Diaz, Rosalia Charry Moreno, Liliana Escobar Sierra, Rocio Leticia Fajardo Pinzon, Elsa Cecilia Leon Salgado, Clara Aurora Lopez Hernandez, Teresa de Jesus Medina Quintero, Flor Marina Moyano de Gonzalez, Maria Consuelo Naranjo Abril, Jorge de Jesus Olivares Guevara, Jose Maria Ramirez Franco, Jose Jairo Rodriguez Rodriguez, camilo Rojas Garcia, Jose Joaquin Rojas Pulido, Maria Isabel Umbarila Andrade y Dioselina Vargas Garavito contra la Alcaldia Mayor de Bogota, la Secretaria de Educacion de esta ciudad y el Instituto para la Investigacion Educativa y Desarrollo Pedagogico, al Juzgado Veinticuatro Penal Municipal de Bogota, para que se tramite y decida sin mas dilacion.
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
DissentJaime Araujo Rentería
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.

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.