JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 14, 2010

A- de 2010

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

Reporting justice Juan Carlos Henao Pérez

✓Claimant Luis Alberto Caceres Arbelaez

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.

Control De Constitucionalidad De Ley Estatutaria
  • Carácter definitivo e integral y con efectos de cosa juzgada
Corte Constitucional
  • Control previo de proyecto de ley estatutaria
Control De Constitucionalidad De Proyecto De Ley Estatutaria
  • Vicios de inconstitucionalidad sobreviniente
4 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica presentado contra el auto del 12 de mayo de 2009, proferido por el Magistrado Dr.

Jorge Iván Palacio Palacio, que rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad de la referencia.

La Corte encuentra la demanda estuvo bien rechazada ya que la norma acusada hizo tránsito a cosa juzgada constitucional, se confirma el auto

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. En merito de lo expuesto, la Sala Plena de la Corte Constitucional,
  2. RESUELVE:
  3. CONFIRMAR en todas sus partes el Auto del doce (12) de mayo de dos mil nueve (2009), proferido por despacho del magistrado Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, que rechazo la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Luis Alberto Caceres Arbelaez en contra del articulo 13 de la Ley 1285 de 2009 modificatorio de la Ley 270 de 1996, Estatutaria de Administracion de Justicia.
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.