JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 8, 2005

A- de 2005

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

Reporting justice Rodrigo Escobar Gil

✓Claimant Ana Beatriz Larrota Castañeda

✓
Topic · hard data
Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad Contra Los Articulos 38, Numeral Cuarto, Paragrafo 1o Y 174 De La Ley 734 De 2002, Codigo Unico Disciplinario. Aceptar Los Impedimentos Manifestados Por El Procurador General De La Nación Y El Viceprocurador General De La Nación. Para Conceptuar En El Proceso De La Referencia
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. Primero. ACEPTAR el impedimento manifestado por el Senor Procurador General de la Nacion, Edgardo Jose Maya Villazon, para emitir concepto en relacion con la demanda de inconstitucionalidad que obra en el expediente D-5775, por las razones expuestas.
  2. Segundo. ACEPTAR el impedimento manifestado por el Senor Viceprocurador General de la Nacion, Carlos Arturo Gomez Pavajeau, para emitir concepto en relacion con la demanda de inconstitucionalidad que obra en el expediente D-5775, por las razones expuestas.
  3. Tercero. ORDENAR que, una vez levantada la suspension, la Secretaria General de esta Corporacion remita el expediente al Senor Procurador General de la Nacion para que, conforme a lo dispuesto en el numeral 33 del articulo 7o del Decreto-Ley 262 de 2000, se sirva designar al funcionario que debe rendir el concepto en el presente proceso, dentro del termino restante.
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.