JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)May 8, 2014

A- de 2014

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

Reporting justice Jorge Iván Palacio Palacio

✓Claimant Oscar Eduardo Borja Santofimio

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.

Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Activación por ciudadano
  • Cumplimiento de requisitos formales
  • Razones claras, ciertas, específicas, pertinentes y suficientes
Accion Publica De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Carácter rogado de la competencia
  • Requisitos
4 topics · 8 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica contra el auto del 2 de abril de 2014, a través del cual el magistrado Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo decidió rechazar la demanda de la referencia, por no evidenciar un cargo convincente por violación del artículo 19 Superior y que tampoco se cumplió con la corrección o complementación correspondiente.

Tras concluir la Sala Plena que no existe un cargo de inconstitucionalidad sobre la ley acusada que haga procedente la acción, decide CONFIRMAR el auto recurrido.

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. En merito de lo expuesto, la Sala Plena de la Corte Constitucional
  2. RESUELVE :
  3. CONFIRMAR el Auto del 2 de abril de 2014, proferido por el magistrado Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo dentro del expediente D-10126, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Oscar Eduardo Borja Santofimio en contra de la Ley 1710 de 2014.
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
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.