JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 24, 2018

A- de 2018

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

Reporting justice Cristina Pardo Schlesinger

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 Auto Que Rechaza Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Se confirma rechazo por haber operado el fenómeno de cosa juzgada
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica.

La demanda se rechazó luego de que la Magistrada Sustanciadora considerara que frente al cargo propuesto había operado el fenómeno de la cosa juzgada.

Ello, al existir identidad de objeto, de causa petendi y no demostrarse la inexistencia de esta figura en virtud de la Sentencia C-057/10.

La Sala Plena considera que no es admisible el fundamento del recurso impetrado, porque el actor mantiene la identidad de objeto en la norma parcialmente acusada, la identidad de la causa petendi y la ausencia de cambio del parámetro constitucional que justifique el inicio de la acción pública de inconstitucionalidad.

Con base en dichas consideraciones se NIEGA el recursos y se CONFIRMA en todas sus partes la providencia cuestionada.

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. CONFIRMAR en todas sus partes el Auto del veintitres (23) de marzo de dos mil dieciocho (2018), proferido por el despacho de la Magistrada Ponente en el proceso D-12606, doctora Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Pablo Cesar Gomez Garnica contra el articulo 24 (parcial) del Decreto Ley 353 de 1994.
  2. Segundo. ARCHIVESE el expediente.
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.