JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 11, 2018

A- de 2018

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

Reporting justice José Fernando Reyes Cuartas

✓Claimant Milena Beatriz Quijano Zapata

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.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Se confirma por cuanto demandante no corrigió en los términos indicados en el auto inadmisorio
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica.

El rechazo de la demanda se dio porque la corrección a la misma no fue adecuada y por tanto persistieron las dificultades encontradas en el auto de inadmisión, al no satisfacer los presupuestos de certeza, suficiencia y pertinencia.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación considera que el memorial que pretendía la subsanación no se ajustó a los términos del auto inadmisorio y, por ello, decide, CONFIRMAR la providencia cuestionada.

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 el auto del 13 de marzo de 2018, proferido por la Magistrada sustanciadora Cristina Pardo Schlesinger, dentro del proceso D-12568, por medio del cual se rechazo la demanda instaurada por Milena Beatriz Quijano Zapata, conforme a las consideraciones expuestas en esta providencia.
  2. Segundo. Proceda la Secretaria General de la Corte Constitucional a comunicar el contenido de esta decision a la recurrente.
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.