JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 22, 2011

A- de 2011

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

Reporting justice Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub

✓Claimant Mauricio Ricardo Guevara Dib·Respondent Sin Información

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.

Accion De Tutela En Materia De Regimen Pensional Especial Para Magistrados De Altas Cortes
  • Denegar solicitud de nulidad de sentencia T-771/10 por extemporánea
Nulidad Contra Sentencias Proferidas Por Salas De Revision
  • Procedencia excepcional por vulneración del debido proceso
  • Requisitos formales y materiales de procedencia
3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de Nulidad: El peticionario fundamenta la solicitud de nulidad de la sentencia T-771-10 en la causal de violación al debido proceso por parte de la Sala de Revisión, como consecuencia del cambio de la línea jurisprudencial sostenida por la Sala Plena de la Corporación.

La Sala Plena se abstiene de realizar un análisis de fondo de los presupuestos formales y materiales relacionados con el incidente de nulidad, porque advierte que la petición se presentó de manera extemporánea.

DENEGADA

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. DENEGAR la solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-771 de 2010 proferida por la Sala Séptima de Revisión.
  2. Segundo. Contra este pronunciamiento 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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

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