JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)May 6, 2020

A- de 2020

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

Reporting justice Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera

✓Claimant Joaquin

✓
Topic · hard data
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 La Corte Constitucional
  • Negar por cuanto cargos planteados son infundados y se pretende reabrir debate jurídico
  • Requisitos formales de procedencia
  • Improcedencia por falta de carga argumentativa
1 topic · 3 subtopics · 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 T-008/20.

Adujo el peticionario que la Sala Segunda de Revisión omitió el análisis de asuntos de relevancia constitucional que habrían tenido efectos transcendentales en el sentido de la decisión.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación concluyó que el incidente de nulidad debía ser RECHAZADO, por no cumplir con el presupuesto formal de la carga argumentativa.

Consideró, que el solicitante no demostró, con base en argumentos serios y coherentes, que la Sala de Revisión hubiese vulnerado el debido proceso.

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 (4 points)
  1. PRIMERO. LEVANTAR la suspension de terminos en el asunto de la referencia.
  2. SEGUNDO. RECHAZAR por insuficiencia en la carga argumentativa, la solicitud de nulidad presentada por Joaquin contra la Sentencia T-008 de 2020.
  3. TERCERO. RECHAZAR las demas peticiones del solicitante.
  4. CUARTO. ORDENAR que se comunique la presente providencia a los interesados, con la advertencia de que contra esta decision 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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
Reporting justice
✓
Alberto Rojas Ríos
Presidente
✓
Alejandro Linares Cantillo
Magistrado
✓
Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
Magistrado
✓
Carlos Libardo Bernal Pulido
Magistrado
✓
Cristina Pardo Schlesinger
Magistrado
Read dissent
✓
Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado
Magistrado
✓
José Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Magistrado
✓
Luis Guillermo Guerrero Pérez
Magistrado
Separate opinions — text available1
DissentCristina Pardo Schlesinger
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
← cites 0cited by 1 →A. 162/20T-435/24 — Tutela Contra Decisiones Judiciales En Asunto De Violencia Intrafamiliar-Derecho De Las Mujeres A Una Vida Libre De Violencia (Psicológica-IT-435/242024
constitutional review unification tutela
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by1

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