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 Angy Marcelo Moncada Puentes Y Otro

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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica interpuesto en contra del auto de rechazo de la demanda de inconstitucionalidad de la referencia.

La providencia recurrida se fundamentó en el hecho de que no obstante el actor corrigió la demanda, ésta siguió siendo deficiente.

Advierte la Sala Plena que en realidad los defectos indicados a los demandantes no fueron subsanados, por cuanto los señalamientos aducidos a modo de corrección no alcanzaron a superar la falta de certeza, especificidad y suficiencia previamente exigidos, ni lograron precisar la manera en que se configuraba la oposición objetiva y verificable entre el contenido de la ley acusada y el texto de la Constitución Política.

Con base en lo anterior, decide negar el recurso formulado y CONFIRMAR el auto recurrido.

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 del 13 de mayo de 2016, dictado por el Magistrado Sustanciador Alejandro Linares Cantillo, por medio del cual rechazo la demanda, identificada con el numero de radicacion D-11338.
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.