JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)December 6, 2012

A- de 2012

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 Orlando Rengifo Callejas

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.

4 topics · 5 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de Súplica interpuesto contra el auto del 19 de septiembre de 2012, dictado por el Magistrado Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, para rechazar la demanda de la referencia.

La Sala Plena reitera que el recurso de súplica está instituido para que el libelista ataque la motivación expuesta por el magistrado sustanciador en el auto de rechazo y no para controvertir las razones por las cuales el Despacho inadmitió la demanda.

Se concluye que, el actor no hizo un uso adecuado de la presente herramienta jurídica en orden a presentar argumentos suficientes dirigidos a desvirtuar la validez de la motivación expuesta en el auto objeto del mismo, por lo que decide CONFIRMAR el auto suplicado.

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. CONFIRMAR el auto del diecinueve (19) de septiembre de 2012, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por el ciudadano Orlando Rengifo Callejas, en contra del articulo 152 (parcial) de la Ley 1530 de 2012 "Por la cual se regula la organizacion y el funcionamiento del Sistema General de Regalias".
  2. SEGUNDO. ARCHIVESE el expediente.
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.