JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)December 6, 2011

A- de 2011

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

Reporting justice María Victoria Calle Correa

✓Claimant Luis Eduardo Montoya Medina·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.

Cambio De Jurisprudencia
  • Competencia de la Sala Plena
Precedente Judicial
  • No es vinculante cuando hechos determinantes no concuerdan con el supuesto de hecho
Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Reiteración de jurisprudencia
  • Solicitud dentro de los tres días siguientes a la notificación del fallo
6 topics · 7 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 solicita la nulidad de la sentencia T-841/09por considerar que la Sala de Revisión desconoció un precedente consolidado de la Corporación para la protección del derecho constitucional al debido proceso.

La Sala Plena encuentra que no se incurrió en la vulneración del debido proceso alegada por el actor y de manera consecuente resuelve NEGAR la petición de nulidad impetrada.

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 solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-841 de 2009, proferida por la Sala Segunda de Revision.
  2. Segundo. Comuniquese la presente providencia al peticionario, con la advertencia de que contra esta decision no procede ningun recurso.
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.

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.