JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 28, 2012

A- de 2012

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

Reporting justice Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva

✓Claimant Ramiro Rodriguez Lopez

✓
Topic · hard data
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.

Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica formulado en contra del auto del 2 de noviembre del 2012 proferido por el Magistrado Alexei Julio Estrada, mediante el cual se rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad de la referencia, por considerar que el escrito subsanatorio no solucionó los yerros identificados en el auto de inadmisión.

La Sala Plena advierte que el demandante no expuso las razonas que le permitían oponerse a las consideradas realizadas por el Magistrado Sustanciador para rechazar la demanda, relacionadas con el incumplimiento de los requisitos de certeza y claridad del cargo de inconstitucionalidad.

Se decide 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. PRIMERO. CONFIRMAR el auto del 2 de noviembre de 2012, proferido por el magistrado Alexei Julio Estrada, que rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad de la referencia, formulada por el ciudadano Rodríguez López.
  2. SEGUNDO. A través de la Secretaría General de la Corte, comuníquese el contenido de esta decisión al recurrente, indicándole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decisión, archívese el expediente.
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.