JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 2, 2000

A- de 2000

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

Reporting justice José Gregorio Hernández Galindo

✓Claimant Fabio Mejia Benavides.

✓
Topic · hard data
Aclaracion Sentencia C-636 De 2000.
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.

Sentencia De Constitucionalidad
  • Improcedencia de recursos
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se rechazó por improcedente la petición formulada por el ciudadano de la referencia en el sentido de que se le absuelvan algunas dudas surgidas con respecto a la Sentencia C-636/00, toda vez que el peticionario, no fue parte dentro del proceso de constitucionalidad que dio lugar a la mencionada providencia y tampoco intervino dentro de la oportunidad procesal pertinente para atacar con sus planteamientos la constitucionalidad de las normas que se refiere.

De igual manera se ordenó informar al peticionario que dentro de las funciones de la Corte Constitucional no está la de absolver consultas.

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. RECHAZAR por improcedente la petición formulada por Fabio Mejía Benavides, en el sentido de que se le absuelvan algunas dudas surgidas con respecto a la sentencia C-636/2000.
  2. De igual manera ha de informarse al peticionario que dentro de las funciones de la Corte Constitucional no está la de absolver consultas.
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.