JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 21, 2012

A- de 2012

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

Reporting justice Mauricio González Cuervo

✓Claimant Julio Cesar Bonilla Mosquera

✓
Topic · hard data
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
  • Razones por las que se considera que la Corte Constitucional es competente
  • Requisitos de admisibilidad
  • Objeto
  • Concepto de violación
Accion Publica De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Requisitos
  • Cumplimiento de claridad, certeza, especificad, pertinencia y suficiencia
3 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 interpuesto contra el auto del 30 de septiembre de 2011 proferido por la Magistrado María Victoria Calle Correa, por medio del cual se rechazó la demanda de la referencia.

Para la Sala Plena es claro que la demanda no argumenta a fondo la supuesta contradicción entre la Constitución Política y la norma demandada, sino que se constituye en una suposición y, con base en ello, se 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. Primero. CONFIRMAR el auto proferido por la Magistrada Maria Victoria Calle Correa, el 30 de septiembre de 2011, por medio del cual se rechazo la demanda instaurada por el ciudadano Julio Cesar Bonilla Mosquera.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia no cabe 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.

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.