JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 21, 2023

A- de 2023

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

Reporting justice Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera

✓Claimant De Oficio Procesado T. S. E.·Respondent T. S. E.

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.

Notificacion Por Correo
  • Precisiones en torno a su alcance y efectividad
3 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de nulidad presentada por el gobernador del resguardo indígena Chenche Buenos Aires Tradicional del municipio Coyaima (Tolima), contra el Auto 1588 de 2022, argumentando que esta decisión sería nula por “la irregularidad consistente en omitir la notificación del auto de pruebas”.

La Sala Plena considera que la solicitud de nulidad sub examine debe ser negada, toda vez que el Auto mencionado no violó el derecho fundamental al debido proceso de la comunidad indígena, ya que la notificación del auto de pruebas proferido por la magistrada sustanciadora el 1 de agosto de 2022 se surtió en debida forma.

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. NEGAR la solicitud de nulidad presentada por el señor Guillermo Tovar, en calidad de gobernador del resguardo indígena Chenche Buenos Aires Tradicional del municipio Coyaima (Tolima), contra el Auto 1588 de 2022.
  2. SEGUNDO. Mediante Secretaría General, ENVIAR copia de la constancia de envío del oficio OPCJU-196-2022 al señor Guillermo Tovar al correo tmgildardo@hotmail.com.
  3. TERCERO. ADVERTIR que 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.

Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

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