JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 22, 2017

A- de 2017

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

Reporting justice José Antonio Cepeda Amarís

✓Claimant Andres De Zubiria Samper

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)

Recurso de súplica presentado por el ciudadano Andrés de Zubiría Samper.

La Sala Plena considera que el peticionario no corrigió la demanda en los términos establecidos en el auto cuestionado, como tampoco controvirtió ni formal ni materialmente la providencia que decidió el rechazo parcial de la misma En consecuencia, CONFIRMA en su integridad el auto mediante el cual se rechazó parcialmente la demanda de inconstitucionalidad formulada por el recurrente.

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. CONFIRMAR en su integridad el Auto del veinticuatro (24) de febrero de dos mil diecisiete (2017), proferido por el Magistrado Sustanciador Alberto Rojas Ríos, mediante el cual se rechazó parcialmente la demanda de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por el ciudadano Andrés de Zubiría Samper.
  2. SEGUNDO. A través de la Secretaría General de la Corte, comuníquese el contenido de esta decisión a la demandante, indicándole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decisión, archívese el expediente.
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.