JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 26, 2022

A- de 2022

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

Reporting justice José Fernando Reyes Cuartas

✓Claimant Gustavo Gallon Giraldo Y Otros

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.

Solicitud De Nulidad Sentencia De Constitucionalidad
  • Rechazar por extemporánea
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia C-100/22.

El director, coordinador y varios abogados del área de incidencia nacional de la Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (CCJ), presentaron el incidente al considerar que la Corte incurrió en una incongruencia argumentativa entre las partes motiva y resolutiva de la sentencia al resolver el segundo cargo, relativo a que el artículo 170 del Código de Policía debió tramitarse como ley estatutaria.

Por incumplir el requisito de oportunidad y, en consecuencia, haber sido presentado de manera extemporáneo, la Sala Plena decidió RECHAZAR la nulidad invocada.

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.

See the operative part (22 points)
  1. Primero. RECHAZAR por extemporánea la solicitud de nulidad presentada por los ciudadanos Gustavo Gallón Giraldo, Julián González Escallón, Sibelys Mejía Rodríguez, Juan Ospina y David Fernando Cruz, respectivamente director, coordinador, abogada y abogados del área de incidencia nacional de la Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (CCJ), en contra de la Sentencia C-100 de 2022.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia no procede recurso alguno.
  3. Notifíquese y cúmplase.
  4. CRISTINA PARDO SCHLESINGER
  5. Presidenta
  6. NATALIA ÁNGEL CABO
  7. Magistrada
  8. DIANA FAJARDO RIVERA
  9. Magistrada
  10. JORGE ENRIQUE IBÁÑEZ NAJAR
  11. Magistrado
  12. ALEJANDRO LINARES CANTILLO
  13. Magistrado
  14. ANTONIO JOSÉ LIZARAZO OCAMPO
  15. Magistrado
  16. PAOLA ANDREA MENESES MOSQUERA
  17. Magistrada
  18. HERNÁN CORREA CARDOZO
  19. Magistrado (E)
  20. JOSE FERNANDO REYES CUARTAS
  21. Magistrado
  22. MARTHA VICTORIA SÁCHICA MÉNDEZ
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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
José Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Reporting justice
✓
Alejandro Linares Cantillo
Magistrado
✓
Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
Magistrado
✓
Cristina Pardo Schlesinger
Presidente
✓
Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
Magistrado
✓
Hernán Leandro Correa Cardozo
Magistrado
✓
Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar
Magistrado
✓
Natalia Ángel Cabo
Magistrado
✓
Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera
Magistrado
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
← cites 0cited by 4 →A. 1598/22A. 913/24 · cited 1 timesA. 913/242024A. 1017/24A. 1017/242024A. 1342/24A. 1342/242024A. 1691/24A. 1691/242024
constitutional review unification tutela
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by4

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.