JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 13, 2022

A- de 2022

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

Reporting justice Cristina Pardo Schlesinger

✓Claimant Ortega Rodríguez Camilo Ernesto·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.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Inexistencia de argumentación, razonamiento o motivación
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 interpuesta en contra del auto que rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad de la referencia.

Luego de corroborar que el rechazo se configuró porque el demandante no presentó escrito para subsanar los yerros advertidos en el auto de inadmisión, la Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió RECHAZAR por improcedente el recurso formulado en esta oportunidad.

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 improcedente el recurso de súplica presentado contra el auto del veinte (20) de septiembre de dos mil veintidós (2022), proferido por el magistrado (e) Hernán Correa Cardozo, el cual rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad formulada por el ciudadano Camilo Ernesto Ortega Rodríguez, en contra de los artículos 117 y 140, numeral 2° (parciales) del Código Civil, dentro del proceso D-14.929, por las razones señaladas en el presente auto.
  2. Segundo. ARCHIVESE 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.

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.