JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 11, 2012

A- de 2012

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

Reporting justice Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva

✓Claimant Ramiro Saavedra Becerra·Respondent Sin Información

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.

Nulidad Contra Sentencias Proferidas Por Salas De Revision
  • Procedencia excepcional
  • Requisitos de procedencia
Reliquidacion De Pensiones
  • Requisitos que deben acreditarse para que proceda tutela transitoria
Desconocimiento Del Precedente Judicial
  • Reiteración de jurisprudencia
3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de Nulidad de Sentencia.

El memorialista solicita la nulidad de la sentencia T-234/11, argumentando que la Sala de Revisión cambió la jurisprudencia de la Corporación respecto al derecho de petición y al reconocimiento de pensiones a magistrados de Altas Cortes.

La Sala Plena precisa que los argumentos presentados por el incidentante no cumplen con los presupuestos materiales de procedencia para declarar la nulidad de una sentencia y, en tal sentido NIEGA la petición impetrada.

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 la declaracion de nulidad de la Sentencia T-234 de 2011, proferida por la Sala Novena de Revision.
  2. Segundo. Comuniquese la presente providencia al peticionario, con la advertencia de que contra esta decision no procede ningun recurso.
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 available2
ConcurrenceNilson Pinilla PinillaDissentLuis Ernesto Vargas Silva
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
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

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