JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 14, 2022

A- de 2022

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

Reporting justice Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera

✓Claimant Autoridad Nacional De Acuicultura Y Pesca

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.

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 aclaración de la Sentencia C-148/22.

La Autoridad Nacional de Acuicultura y Pesca (AUNAP) le pidió a la Corte aclarar el fallo de la referencia, en el sentido de precisar los alcances de los efectos diferidos: De manera específica indicó que era necesario establecer si la regulación legal o administrativa de la pesca deportiva, fundada en evidencia científica que dé cuenta de que dicha actividad no causa ningún daño a los peces, supone la superación de los obstáculos constitucionales que condujeron a su prohibición vía inexequibilidad.

Por falta de legitimidad de la peticionaria, se RECHAZÓ la aclaración rogada.

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 aclaración de la Sentencia C-148 de 2022, presentada por la Autoridad Nacional de Acuicultura y Pesca.
  2. SEGUNDO. Por Secretaría General de la Corte Constitucional COMUNICAR la presente providencia a la entidad solicitante, con la advertencia de que contra esta decisión 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 available1
ConcurrenceAntonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
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.

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.