JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 11, 2023

A- de 2023

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

Reporting justice Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo

✓Claimant Freddy Alex Cyfuentes Rivera Y Otros·Respondent --

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.

Solicitud De Adicion O Aclaracion Auto Que Niega Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Rechazar por improcedente
Solicitud De Aclaracion Sentencia De Constitucionalidad
  • Procedencia excepcional
Solicitud De Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Presupuestos formales y materiales de procedencia
3 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitudes de aclaración y adición del Auto 243/23, mediante el cual se resolvió la nulidad de la Sentencia C-055/22.

Los memorialistas presentaron varias tesis para respaldar sus peticiones y la Corte, luego de analizarlas, decidió RECHAZARLAS por improcedentes debido a la falta de legitimación, por haber sido formuladas de manera extemporáneas y por no cumplir la exigencia de carga argumentativa.

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.

See the operative part (22 points)
  1. Primero. RECHAZAR por improcedentes las solicitudes de aclaración y adición del Auto 243 de 2023 presentadas por Freddy Alex Cyfuentes-Pantoja de Santa Cruz, Luis Felipe Munarth Rubio, Carmen Alicia Martínez Rivera, Harold Sua Montaña, Vilma Graciela Martínez Rivera, Andrés Forero Medina y Javier Armando Suárez Pascagaza, por las razones expuestas en la parte motiva.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia no proceden recursos.
  3. Notifíquese y cúmplase,
  4. DIANA FAJARDO RIVERA
  5. Presidenta
  6. NATALIA ÁNGEL CABO
  7. Magistrada
  8. JUAN CARLOS CORTÉS GONZÁLEZ
  9. Magistrado
  10. JORGE ENRIQUE IBÁÑEZ NAJAR
  11. Magistrado
  12. ALEJANDRO LINARES CANTILLO
  13. Magistrado
  14. ANTONIO JOSÉ LIZARAZO OCAMPO
  15. Magistrado
  16. PAOLA ANDREA MENESES MOSQUERA
  17. Magistrada
  18. CRISTINA PARDO SCHLESINGER
  19. Magistrada
  20. JOSE FERNANDO REYES CUARTAS
  21. Magistrado
  22. ANDREA LILIANA ROMERO LOPEZ
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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
Reporting justice
✓
Alejandro Linares Cantillo
Magistrado
✓
Cristina Pardo Schlesinger
Magistrado
✓
Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
Presidente
✓
Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar
Magistrado
✓
José Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Magistrado
✓
Juan Carlos Cortés González
Magistrado
✓
Natalia Ángel Cabo
Magistrado
✓
Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera
Magistrado
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.