JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 10, 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 Hector Rodriguez Pizarro

✓
Topic · hard data
Adicion Auto Sala Plena Que Rechaza Solicitud
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 negó por improcedentes las solicitudes presentadas por el ciudadano de la referencia en memoriales del 10, 17, 26 y 31 de julio, 2, 12 y 26 de agosto de 2002, en relación con los expedientes de tutela Nos.

T-267.061, T-315.144, T-372.869, T-488.416, T-627.029 y T-629.087, toda vez que resulta improcedente reabrir asuntos ya concluidos para los cuales se agotó la competencia de la Corte Constitucional, como lo ha señalado esta Corporación, en sentencia T-247/97.

Se advirtió al peticionario, que contra esta decisión no procede recurso alguno.

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. Negar por improcedentes las solicitudes presentadas por el ciudadano Hector Rodriguez Pizarro, en memoriales del 10, 17, 26 y 31 de julio, 2, 12 y 26 de agosto de 2002, en relacion con los expedientes de tutela Nos. T-267.061, T-315.144, T-372.869, T-488.416, T-627.029 y T-629.087.
  2. Segundo. Advertir al peticionario, que contra esta decision no procede recurso alguno.
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.