JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 29, 2007

A- de 2007

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 Camilo Chinchilla Rozo

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra El Auto Del 6 De Agosto De 2007 De Rechazo De La Demanda, Proferido Por El Magistrado Sustanciador Dr. Jaime Araujo Renteria, Aduciendo Que En Dicho Auto No Se Establecio Explicitamente Porque No Se Considera Pertinente Constitucionalmente Argumentar Que Uno De Los Efectos De La Norma Acusada Conlleva Un Efecto Tal Que Implica Violar La Constitucion. La Sala Plena Coincide Con El Criterio Del Magistrado Sustanciador En El Sentido De Que La Demanda No Cumple Con Los Requisitos Para Ser Estudiada En Sede De Constitucionalidad. Confirma El Auto De Rechazo
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 Rechazo Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Incumplimiento de requisitos de certeza y pertinencia
1 topic · 1 subtopic · 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. En merito de lo expuesto, la Sala Plena de la Corte Constitucional en ejercicio de sus facultades constitucionales y legales,
  2. RESUELVE
  3. Confirmar el auto de auto de agosto seis (6) de dos mil siete 2007, mediante el cual el Magistrado sustanciador Jaime Araujo Renteria resolvio rechazar la demanda interpuesta por Camilo Chinchilla Rozo contra el articulo 1deg, parcial, de la Ley 856 de 2003.
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.