JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 22, 2018

A- de 2018

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Rhina Patricia Escobar Barboza

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
  • Procedencia excepcional con posterioridad al fallo o de manera oficiosa
  • Requisitos formales y materiales de procedencia
  • Término de tres días siguientes a la notificación del fallo
  • Rechazar por extemporánea
1 topic · 4 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-459/17.

La peticionaria, en su calidad de Magistrada del Tribunal Superior de Popayán, adujo que en la precitada providencia se desconoció la Sentencia SU.448/16 al reconocer la sanción moratoria al accionante.

La nulidad invocada se RECHAZA, por cuando se formuló por fuera del plazo que se tenía para cuestionar la validez del referido fallo, es decir el término de ejecutoria del mismo.

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 la solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-459 de 2017, formulada por la ciudadana Rhina Patricia Escobar Barboza, en los terminos de la parte motiva de esta providencia.
  2. Segundo. COMUNIQUESE la presente providencia a la peticionaria, con la advertencia 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.

Separate opinions — text available4
DissentCristina Pardo SchlesingerDissentAlberto Rojas RíosConcurrenceGloria Stella Ortiz DelgadoDissentCarlos Libardo Bernal Pulido
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.

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.