JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)May 9, 2018

A- de 2018

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

Reporting justice Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado

✓Claimant Camilo Forero Forero

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
  • Improcedencia por cuanto el recurso de súplica no presenta argumentos que desvirtúen las razones constitutivas del rechazo de la demanda
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 realizó las correcciones señaladas en los términos indicados en el auto de inadmisión.

La Corte desestima el recurso formulado y CONFIRMA el auto cuestionado por cuanto el demandante no presentó argumentos que desvirtuaran las razones constitutivas del rechazo.

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 10 de abril de 2018, proferido por el Magistrado Antonio Jose Lizarazo Ocampo en el proceso D-12586, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Camilo Forero Forero, contra el paragrafo (parcial) del articulo 37deg del Decreto Ley 274 de 2000.
  2. SEGUNDO. A traves de la Secretaria General de la Corte, comuniquese el contenido de esta decision al recurrente, indicandole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decision, archivese 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.

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.