JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 10, 2011

A- de 2011

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 Leonardo Andres Hernandez Motta

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.

Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de Súplica interpuesto contra el Auto del 16 de mayo de 2011, proferido por el doctor Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, mediante el cual se rechazó la demanda de la referencia, por cuanto los cargos alegados carecían de especificidad, pertinencia y suficiencia.

La Sala constata que los problemas advertidos en el auto admisorio no fueron efectivamente corregidos y porque entre las normas acusadas en la demanda se encuentra una de carácter reglamentario.

Se desestima el recurso interpuesto y se confirma íntegramente el auto impugnado.

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. CONFIRMAR en todas sus partes el Auto del 16 de mayo de 2011, proferido por el despacho del Magistrado ponente en el proceso D-8493, doctor Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Leonardo Andres Hernandez Motta, en contra del articulo 132 (parcial) del Decreto 960 de 1970 y del articulo 60, numeral 2, literal a) (parcial) del Decreto 2184 de 1983.
  2. Segundo. 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.

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.