JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 27, 2002

A- de 2002

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

Reporting justice Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra

✓Claimant Hernan Zajar Zambrano Muñoz

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia
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
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se ordenó remitir el expediente de tutela al Tribunal Superior de Cali, Sala Penal, para que adelante la correspondiente actuación judicial en primera instancia.

La Corte explicó que si bien se encontraba vigente el Decreto 1382 de 2000, para el caso en concreto no es posible aplicar el citado decreto por cuanto las decisiones del Consejo Superior de la Judicatura, Sala Disciplinaria, se profieren por la Sala en pleno.

Por tanto, se hace necesario aplicar el Art. 37 del Decreto 2591 de 1991 que consagra que “son competentes para conocer de la acción de tutela, a prevención, los jueces o tribunales con jurisdicción en el lugar donde ocurriere la violación o la amenaza que motivaren la presentación de la solicitud” lo cual es posible puesto que para la fecha de la interposición de la tutela no existía la sentencia del Consejo de Estado del 18 de julio de 2002.

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. REMITIR el expediente de tutela al Tribunal Superior de Cali, Sala Penal, para que adelante la correspondiente actuacion judicial en primera instancia.
  2. Comuniquese,
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 available1
DissentJaime Araujo Rentería
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.

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.