JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)July 7, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva

✓Claimant Fernando Fonseca Jimenez

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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica formulado contra el auto que rechazó parcialmente la demanda de inconstitucionalidad de la referencia, en tanto se advirtió la falta de competencia de la Corte Constitucional para pronunciarse sobre los preceptos acusados.

En su escrito, el recurrente reiteró de manera desordenada las razones planteadas en su líbelo, pero no presentó ningún argumento dirigido a demostrar la competencia de la Corporación para asumir asuntos cuyo control de constitucionalidad, como en el caso concreto, corresponden a la justicia contencioso administrativa.

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. PRIMERO. CONFIRMAR el auto del 14 de junio de 2016, proferido por el magistrado Alberto Rojas Ríos, que rechazó la demanda formulada por el ciudadano Fernando Fonseca Jiménez contra el Acuerdo 049 del 1º de febrero de 1990, así como contra el Decreto 758 de 1990.
  2. SEGUNDO. A través de la Secretaría General de la Corte, comuníquese el contenido de esta decisión al demandante, indicándole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decisión, archívese 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.