JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 8, 2017

A- de 2017

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

Reporting justice Aquiles Arrieta Gómez

✓Claimant Eluin Guillermo Abreo Triviño

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.

Solicitud De Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Negar por cuanto no existió vulneración del debido proceso y se pretende reabrir debate jurídico
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia SU.425/16.

Luego de analizar los argumentos expuestos por peticionario, evidencia la Sala que los mismos no encuadran dentro de las hipótesis contempladas por la Corporación para dar lugar a la nulidad de una providencia, puesto que no comportan repercusiones sustanciales en el fallo adoptado y no dan muestra de trasgresión al debido proceso.

Reitera, que resulta improcedente utilizar la solicitud de nulidad para crear una etapa procesal adicional, en la que se discuta nuevamente el problema jurídico planteado y resuelto por la Corte Constitucional en sede de tutela.

Se RECHAZA.

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 la solicitud de nulidad presentada por el senor Eluin Guillermo Abreo Trivino contra la sentencia SU-425 de 2016 proferida por la Sala Plena de esta Corporacion.
  2. SEGUNDO. Notifiquese la presente providencia al peticionario, informandole 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.

Separate opinions — text available4
ConcurrenceMaría Victoria Calle CorreaConcurrenceGloria Stella Ortiz DelgadoConcurrenceAlejandro Linares CantilloConcurrenceAquiles Arrieta Gómez
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.