JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 21, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub

✓Claimant Francisco Jose Vergara Carulla

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
  • Se confirma en su integridad el auto recurrido
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 interpuesto en contra del auto que rechazó la demanda de la referencia, por cuanto el actor no presentó corrección de la misma en el término establecido en el auto de inadmisión.

La Sala Plena, tras evidenciar que los problemas advertidos en los autos de inadmisión y en el rechazo fueron acertados y no corregidos por el demandante, decide desestimar el recurso impetrado y CONFIRMAR la providencia recurrida.

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. CONFIRMAR en todas sus partes el Auto del diecisiete (17) de marzo de dos mil dieciseis (2016), proferido por el despacho del Magistrado Sustanciador en el proceso D-11234, Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Francisco Jose Vergara Carulla contra el inciso
  2. cuarto. (parcial) del articulo 142 de la Ley 1564 de 2012.
  3. Segundo. COMUNICAR el contenido de esta decision al recurrente, informandole que contra la misma no procede recurso alguno.
  4. Tercero. 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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub
Reporting justice
✓
Alberto Rojas Ríos
Magistrado
✓
Alejandro Linares Cantillo
Magistrado
✓
Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo
Magistrado
✓
Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado
Magistrado
✓
Jorge Iván Palacio Palacio
Magistrado
✓
Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva
Magistrado
✓
Luis Guillermo Guerrero Pérez
Magistrado
✓
María Victoria Calle Correa
Presidente
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.