JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 10, 2014

A- de 2014

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

Reporting justice Jorge Iván Palacio Palacio

✓Claimant Ricardo Vanegas Sierra

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
  • Activación por ciudadano
  • Cumplimiento de requisitos formales
  • Deber mínimo de diligencia por el ciudadano
  • Razones claras, ciertas, específicas, pertinentes y suficientes
Accion De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Naturaleza pública e informal
Accion Publica De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Carácter rogado de la competencia
6 topics · 9 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica contra el auto que rechazó la demanda de la referencia, por cuanto el actor no concretó sus argumentos de manera cierta y verificable, al punto que pudiera iniciarse un juicio de constitucionalidad.

La Sala Plena encuentra que el recurso interpuesto no está llamado a prosperar, toda vez que su sustento no logró demostrar la existencia de un yerro o una arbitrariedad en el auto de rechazo.

Se CONFIRMA 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. En merito de lo expuesto, la Sala Plena de la Corte Constitucional
  2. RESUELVE:
  3. CONFIRMAR el auto del 20 de agosto de 2014, proferido por el magistrado Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo dentro del expediente D-10325, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por Ricardo Vanegas Sierra contra los articulos 1o, 2o, 5o, 7o, 10o, 20, 25, 26 y 40 (parciales) de la ley 1333 de 2009.
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.