JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)May 13, 2021

A- de 2021

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

Reporting justice Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar

✓Claimant Edison Pablo Zarate Y Otros

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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recusación en contra de la Procuradora General de la Nación, por parte de varios ciudadanos que se identifican como directivos del Colectivo de Víctimas de Inhabilidades contrarias a la CADH.

Los recurrentes consideraron que la Procuradora debía abstenerse de conceptuar en el proceso de la referencia, por cuando manifestó públicamente su opinión sobre el hecho de que el Ministerio Público pueda destituir funcionarios elegidos democráticamente.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación encontró que la recusación no cumple con la condición mínima de legitimación de quienes recusan, lo que conlleva la impertinencia de la misma y lo innecesario de proseguir con el análisis correspondiente a las demás condiciones mínimas de pertinencia.

Se RECHAZA.

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. RECHAZAR, por falta legitimación y, por ende, de pertinencia, la recusación presentada por los señores Edison Pablo Zárate, Martha Camila Páez, Andrés Fabián Moreno y Delio Camilo Zúñiga, en contra de la Procuradora General de la Nación, dentro del expediente PE-050.
  2. SEGUNDO. Contra esta providencia 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.

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.