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 Martha Victoria Sáchica Méndez

✓Claimant Henry Niño Herrera Y Otros·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.

Aclaracion Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Declaración de inexequibilidad en sentencia C-113/93
  • Procedencia respecto de conceptos o frases contenidas en la parte resolutiva o que influyan en ella
  • Reiteración de improcedencia
  • Procedencia por presentación dentro del término de ejecutoria
2 topics · 5 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitudes de aclaración de la sentencia C-390/14.

A través de diferentes escritos se solicita se aclare el alcance y efecto de la providencia de la referencia, específicamente a lo que atañe al numeral segundo de la parte resolutiva.

Al verificar que las peticiones fueron presentadas de manera extemporánea se decide rechazarlas.

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 la solicitud de aclaracion de la sentencia C-390 de 2014, presentada por el Henry Nino Herrera.
  2. SEGUNDO. RECHAZAR la solicitud de aclaracion de la sentencia C-390 de 2014, formulada por Yandira Alicia Urango Codinas y Edurado Barrios Valencia.
  3. TERCERO. 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.

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.