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 Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera

✓Claimant Jose Rosemberg Nuñoz Diaz

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 por cuanto demandante no corrigió en los términos indicados en el auto inadmisorio
  • Incumplimiento de requisitos mínimos para la admisión
1 topic · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica.

El rechazo se dio porque el escrito de corrección omitió subsanar los yerros adolecidos por la demanda y porque el actor reiteró los mismos argumentos de fondo que dieron origen a la inadmisión.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió CONFIRMAR en su integridad la providencia recurrida.

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 su integridad el Auto del cinco (5) de abril de dos mil dieciocho (2018), proferido por el Magistrado Sustanciador Carlos Bernal Pulido, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por el ciudadano Jose Rosemberg Nunez Diaz.
  2. SEGUNDO. A traves de la Secretaria General de la Corte, comuniquese el contenido de esta decision al demandante, indicandole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decision, 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.