JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 27, 2006

A- de 2006

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

Reporting justice Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra

✓Claimant Franky Urrego Ortiz

✓
Topic · hard data
Correccion De La Sentencia C-738 De 2006. Corregir La Parte Resolutiva De La Sentencia C-738 De 2006 De Manera Que Se Entienda Que La Ley Cuyo Articulo Se Declara Parcialmente Exequible Es La Ley 1010 De 2006 Y Que Cualquier Mencion En La Parte Considerativa Debe Entenderse Hecha A La Ley 1010 De 2006
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
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.

See the operative part (5 points)
  1. PRIMERO. Corregir la parte resolutiva de la Sentencia C-738 de 2006, de manera tal que se entienda que la ley cuyo artículo se declara parcialmente exequible es la Ley 1010 de 2006.
  2. SEGUNDO. Que en vista de lo anterior, en lo sucesivo, la parte resolutiva de la Sentencia C-738 de 2006 quedará así:
  3. "DECLARAR EXEQUIBLE el artículo 14 de la Ley 1010 de 2006, por los cargos analizados en la presente sentencia, a excepción de la expresión "los cuales se descontarán sucesivamente de la remuneración que el quejoso devengue, durante los seis (6) meses siguientes a su imposición." la cual será declarada INEXEQUIBLE."
  4. TERCERO. Que cualquier otra mención que en la parte considerativa de la Sentencia C-738 de 2006 se refiera a la misma ley debe entenderse hecha a la Ley 1010 de 2006.
  5. Cópiese y adiciónese a la Sentencia C-738 de 2006,
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.