JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)February 7, 2024

A- de 2024

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 Polo Echeverri Julián Arturo·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.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Rechazo Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Requisitos de procedencia
  • Incumplimiento de la carga argumentativa
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.

La demanda se rechazó de plano porque se constató que el cargo propuesto por el actor fue resuelto por la Corte Constitucional en sentencias que hicieron tránsito a cosa juzgado.

La Sala Plena concluyó que el recurso impetrado incumplió el requisito de carga argumentativa mínima para habilitar la competencia de la Corporación para emitir un pronunciamiento de fondo y, por ello, decidió RECHAZARLO.

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. RECHAZAR por improcedente el recurso de súplica presentado contra el Auto del 12 de enero de 2024, proferido por el magistrado Juan Carlos Cortés González dentro del expediente D-15.608, el cual rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad del ciudadano Julián Arturo Polo Echeverri contra el artículo 44 (parcial) de la Ley 599 de 2000.
  2. SEGUNDO. A través de la Secretaría General de la Corte Constitucional, COMUNICAR el contenido de esta decisión al demandante, indicándole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decisión, ARCHIVAR el expediente D-15.608.
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
✓
Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
Reporting justice
✓
Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
Magistrado
✓
Cristina Pardo Schlesinger
Magistrado
✓
Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar
Magistrado
✓
José Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Magistrado
Read concurrence
✓
Juan Carlos Cortés González
Magistrado
✓
Natalia Ángel Cabo
Impedido
✓
Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera
Magistrado
✓
Vladimir Fernández Andrade
Magistrado
Separate opinions — text available1
ConcurrenceJosé Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
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.