JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)December 14, 2011

A- de 2011

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

Reporting justice Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub

✓Claimant Maria Clara Leon Rojas·Respondent Sin Información

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.

Precedente Constitucional
  • Modificación por Sala Plena
Nulidad Contra Sentencias Proferidas Por Salas De Revision
  • Procedencia excepcional por vulneración del debido proceso y cumplimiento de la carga argumentativa de quien la alega
  • Requisitos formales y materiales de procedencia
6 topics · 7 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de Nulidad de la sentencia T-288/11.

Los argumentos que sustentan la solicitud de nulidad están dirigidos a mostrar la existencia de una irregularidad que viola el debido proceso y la igualdad, por cuanto no se valoró ni interpretó el material probatorio aportado en el proceso de tutela.

Para la Sala, el escrito objeto de análisis no cumple con el requisito de la excepcionalidad del incidente de nulidad de las sentencias de revisión de la Corte Constitucional y, en tal sentido, se DENIEGA la solicitud impetrada.

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. DENEGAR la solicitud de nulidad de la Sentencia T-288 de 2011 proferida por la Sala Septima de Revision.
  2. Segundo. Contra este pronunciamiento 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.