JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 19, 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 Bernal Cano Natalia·Respondent --

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.

2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Incidente de nulidad del Auto 838 de 2023, mediante el cual se rechazó por falta de pertinencia la recusación formulada en contra del magistrado Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo.

Luego de analizar los argumentos de la recurrente la Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió RECHAZAR el recurso impetrado, por ser manifiestamente improcedente.

Lo anterior, luego de constatar que los planteamientos de la memorialista estaban encaminados a cuestionar el contenido de la providencia, y no a invocar una posible vulneración de su derecho al debido proceso.

Así mismo, porque la solicitud no superó los requisitos formales establecidos para las solicitudes de nulidad de los procesos constitucionales.

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 por ser manifiestamente improcedente la solicitud de nulidad presentada por la doctora Natalia Bernal Cano en contra del Auto 838 de 2023, por medio del cual la Sala Plena rechazó la recusación formulada en contra del magistrado Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo en los expedientes D-14865 y D-15226.
  2. SEGUNDO. COMUNICAR esta providencia a la doctora Natalia Bernal Cano, con la advertencia de que contra esta decisión no procede ningún recurso.
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.