JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 22, 2002

A- de 2002

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant Luis Enrique Olivera Petro

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda
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.

3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se confirmó el auto por el cual se rechazó la demanda instaurada por el ciudadano de la referencia, por lo anterior, la Corte recordó que el ejercicio del recurso de súplica le impone al actor tanto el deber de interponerlo oportunamente como de sustentarlo con un grado mínimo de fundamentación, en orden a controvertir la decisión de rechazo.

Esto es, realizando un razonamiento mediante el cual la Sala Plena pueda constatar el yerro, el olvido o la actuación arbitraria que se endilga al auto de rechazo.

De suerte tal que el recurso de súplica no está llamado a convertirse en nueva oportunidad para adicionar, complementar, aclarar o reformar una demanda sino que, por su propia esencia, está destinado a controvertir la posición que el Magistrado Sustanciador haya tomado en un caso concreto.

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. RESUELVE
  2. CONFIRMAR el Auto de dos (2) de octubre de 2002, por el cual la Magistrada Sustanciadora Clara Ines Vargas Hernandez rechazo la demanda instaurada por el ciudadano Luis Enrique Olivera Petro.
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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.