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 Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado

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.

Recusacion
  • Causales taxativas
  • Alcance de la causal "haber conceptuado sobre la constitucionalidad de la disposición acusada"
Recusacion De Magistrado De La Corte Constitucional
  • Falta de legitimación para formularla
Incidente De Recusacion
  • Condiciones formales y materiales
4 topics · 5 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recusación formulada contra el Magistrado Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió no abrir a trámite la solicitud de recusación, debido a la falta de legitimación por activa, pertinencia e incumplimiento de la carga argumentativa exigida para el efecto.

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. RECHAZAR por falta del cumplimiento de los requisitos de legitimidad, pertinencia y carga argumentativa, la recusacion presentada por el Representante Edwin Gilberto Ballesteros Archila contra el Magistrado Antonio Lizarazo Ocampo, dentro del tramite de las objeciones presidenciales al proyecto de Ley estatutaria 08/17 Senado-16/17 Camara "Estatutaria de la Administracion de Justicia en la Jurisdiccion Especial de Paz", expediente RPZ-010.
  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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.