JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 23, 2008

A- de 2008

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

Reporting justice Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa

✓Claimant Álvaro Eduardo Atencia Martínez En Representación De La Sociedad Fiduciaria De Desarrollo Agropecuario Fiduagraria

✓
Topic · hard data
Incidente De Desacato De La Sentencia T-897/07. Se Decidió Remitir La Petición Al Juzgado Segundo Promiscuo Municipal De Santiago De Tolú Para Que Se Pronuncie Sobre La Viabilidad De La Misma Y, En Caso Afirmativo, Hacer Lo Pertinente.
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.

Cumplimiento Fallo De Tutela
  • Corresponde al juez de primera instancia en el proceso de tutela T-897 de 2007
1 topic · 1 subtopic · 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. Primero. REMITIR al Juzgado
  2. Segundo. Promiscuo Municipal de Santiago de Tolú, la solicitud de establecer si es dable abrir el incidente por desacato de la Sentencia T-897 de 2007, y en caso afirmativo hacer lo pertinente, en el trámite promovido por Álvaro Eduardo Atencia Martínez, representante legal de la Sociedad Fiduciaria de Desarrollo Agropecuario FIDUAGRARIA.
  3. Segundo. INFORMAR a Álvaro Eduardo Atencia Martínez, representante legal de la Sociedad Fiduciaria de Desarrollo Agropecuario FIDUAGRARIA, que el juez competente para conocer del incidente de desacato de las órdenes impartidas en la sentencia T-897 de 2007, es el Juzgado
  4. Segundo. Promiscuo Municipal de Santiago de Tolú.
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.