JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)December 1, 2021

A- de 2021

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Ana Cristina Gonzalez Velez Y Otros

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.

Recusacion Formulada Contra Conjuez
  • Rechazar por falta de pertinencia
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Examen de pertinencia de la recusación presentada en contra del Conjuez Hernando Yepes Arcila, para participar en la discusión y decisión del impedimento presentado por el magistrado Alejandro Linares Cantillo.

Los memorialistas cuestionan la falta de imparcialidad del profesional, como consecuencia de la existencia de un conflicto de interés.

Luego de verificar la falta de pertinencia de la recusación formulada, la Corte decidió RECHAZARLA, al igual que la petición subsidiaria, por cuanto al ser impertinente la petición principal, no hay lugar a ninguna actuación posterior.

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. RECHAZAR por impertinente la recusacion presentada por las ciudadanas Ana Cristina Gonzalez Velez, Mariana Ardila Trujillo, Catalina Martinez Coral, Sandra Mazo Cardona, Cristina Rosero Arteaga, Aura Carolina Cuasapud Arteaga y Valeria Pedraza en contra del Conjuez Hernando Yepes Arcila en los procesos D-13.956 y D-13.856. Asi mismo, RECHAZAR la peticion subsidiaria.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia 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.

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.