JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 22, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo

✓Claimant Representante Legal Sociedad Meta Petroleum Corp. Sucursal Colombia

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.

Solicitud De Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Negar por cuanto no existió vulneración del debido proceso
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de nulidad de la sentencia T-764/15.

El representante legal de la Sociedad Meta Petroleum Corp.

Sucursal Colombia fundamentó el incidente en las incongruencias o contradicciones que se presentan entre la parte motiva y resolutiva del precitado fallo, especialmente en lo atinente a la suspensión parcial de las actividades relacionadas con el proyecto ANLA 4795.

Considera la Sala Plena que los razonamientos presentados por el memorialista no logran demostrar la aducida violación al debido proceso por la presunta incongruencia alegada, menos aún con las características de ostensible, probada, significativa y trascendental, y con repercusiones sustanciales y directas en la decisión o en sus efectos.

Se DENIEGA.

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. NEGAR la nulidad de la sentencia T-764 de 2015, proferida en diciembre 16 de 2015 por la Sala Cuarta de Revision de Tutelas.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia 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.