JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 20, 2005

A- de 2005

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

Reporting justice Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa

✓Claimant Gustavo Hernández Salazar

✓
Topic · hard data
Recusacion Formulada Contra La Totalidad De Los Miembros De La Corte Constitucional. El Decreto 2067 De 1991, Regulo De Manera Integral Lo Atinente A Las Causales De Impedimento Y Recusacion De Los Magistrados De La Corte Constitucional. Cuando La Recusacion Ha Sido Dirigida Contra Todos Los Magistrados, Le Corresponde Al Pleno De La Corte Decidir Sobre La Misma. El Demandante Y El Procurador Son Quienes Legítimamente Pueden Recursar A Un Magistrado De La Corte Constitucional. Gustavo Hernández Salazar No Es Demandante Dentro De Alguno De Los Procesos De Inconstitucionalidad Contra El Acto Legislativo No. 2 De 2004. Declarar La Falta De Legitimación Del Ciudadano Para Formular La Recusacion Contra El Magistrado Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, Que Además No Es Pertinente
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.

2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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. Declarar la falta de legitimacion del ciudadano Gustavo Hernandez Salazar para formular la recusacion a que se ha hecho referencia en esta providencia contra el Magistrado Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, la cual, ademas, no es pertinente.
  2. Segundo. Incorporese al expediente D-5625 el original de esta providencia e insertese copia en los demas procesos que actualmente se tramiten en contra del Acto Legislativo 02 de 2004.
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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

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