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 Clara Inés Vargas Hernández

✓Claimant Domingo Banda Torregroza

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra El Auto De Rechazo De La Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad Contra El Inciso 2 Del Articulo 81 Y El Articulo 98 (Parcial) Del Decreto Ley 1295 De 1994, Que Determina La Organizacion Y Administracion Del Sitema General De Riesgos Profesionales. Confirma El Auto De Rechazo De La Demanda
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.

Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Aplicación del principio pro actione
  • Incumplimiento de requisitos de claridad y suficiencia
Rechazo Parcial Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Improcedencia cuando existen cargos conexos y uno de ellos ha sido admitido
Recurso De Suplica Contra Rechazo Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Corrección de demanda no se ajustó a auto inadmisorio
4 topics · 5 subtopics · 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 (4 points)
  1. CONFIRMAR lo dispuesto mediante el numeral
  2. primero. del auto del veintitres (23) de agosto de 2006, en virtud del cual se resolvio rechazar la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Domingo Banda Torregroza contra el inciso
  3. segundo. del articulo 81 y el articulo 98 (parcial) del Decreto Ley 1295 de 1994, en relacion con los cargos por violacion de los articulos 13, 333, 334, 335 y 336 de la Constitucion Politica.
  4. Notifiquese, copiese e
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.

Separate opinions — text available1
DissentHumberto Antonio Sierra Porto
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
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.