JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)May 13, 2015

A- de 2015

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

Reporting justice Mauricio González Cuervo

✓Claimant Representante Legal De La Empresa Aportes San Isidro S.A.·Respondent Sin Información

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.

Incidente De Nulidad
  • Mecanismo para controvertir la cosa juzgada de las providencias de la Corte Constitucional
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

El memorialista solicitó la revisión y consecuente modificación de los alcances de la sentencia T-267/11.

Lo anterior, debido a que con posterioridad a dicha providencia la Fiscalía General de la Nación estableció que los miembros de ASOCAB eran falsas víctimas.

El peticionario reiteró que la Corporación expidió el fallo bajo la falsa creencia de que los accionantes eran desplazados, dándoles un tratamiento especial, no obstante carecer de pruebas de desplazamiento.

La Sala Plena decide RECHAZAR por improcedente y extemporánea, la solicitud incoada.

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. en nombre del Pueblo y por mandato de la Constitución,
  2. RESUELVE:
  3. RECHAZAR por improcedente y extemporánea la solicitud presentada por el representante legal de la empresa Aportes San Isidro S.A. - ASI S.A. frente a la sentencia T-267 de 2011 proferida por la Sala Segunda de Revisión.
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.

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.