JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)May 29, 2019

A- de 2019

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Martin Emilio Garcia Agudelo

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.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Se confirma auto que rechaza demanda por incumplimiento de requisitos de claridad, certeza, especificidad, pertinencia y suficiencia
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.

El rechazo de la demanda se dio porque el actor no subsanó las falencias advertidas en el Auto de inadmisión, relacionadas con la inobservancia de los requisitos de claridad, certeza, especificidad, pertinencia y suficiencia.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación considera que la providencia cuestionada no incurrió en ningún yerro y, por ello, decide negar la súplica y CONFIRMAR dicha decisión.

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 de 29 de abril de 2019, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda formulada por el ciudadano MARTIN EMILIO GARCIA AGUDELO, contra el articulo 29 de la Ley 504 de 1999, por cargos relacionados con la presunta vulneracion de los articulos 13 y 29 de la Constitucion.
  2. SEGUNDO. Contra esta providencia no procede recurso alguno.
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.