JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)May 22, 2014

A- de 2014

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Pedro Ricardo Torres Baez·Respondent Sin Información

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.

Aclaracion Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Reiteración de improcedencia
  • Procedencia por presentación dentro del término de ejecutoria
  • Declaración de inexequibilidad en sentencia C-113/93
  • Procedencia respecto de conceptos o frases contenidas en la parte resolutiva o que influyan en ella
Solicitud De Aclaración De Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Procedencia excepcional del artículo 285 del Código General del Proceso
3 topics · 6 subtopics · 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-180/14.

El memorialista hace la solicitud de aclaración respecto a ciertos aspectos de la parte motiva del fallo.

Teniendo en cuenta que la petición no versa sobre apartados que hagan confusa la razón de la decisión o la parte resolutiva de la sentencia y que por el contrario, se refiere a un aspecto marginal referido en la providencia, se decide NEGAR la aclaración deprecada.

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 aclaracion de la sentencia C-180 del 27 de marzo de 2014, formulada por el ciudadano Pedro Ricardo Torres Baez, en su calidad de Jefe de la Oficina Asesora Juridica del Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho.
  2. Segundo. Comuniquese la presente providencia al interesado, informandosele que contra esta 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 available2
ConcurrenceGabriel Eduardo Mendoza MarteloConcurrenceAlberto Rojas Ríos
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.

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.