JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 14, 2017

A- de 2017

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

Reporting justice Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado

✓Claimant Gustavo Ducuara Lopez

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.

Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Improcedencia de aclaración
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de aclaración de la Sentencia C-757/14.

Frente a las pretensiones del peticionario concluye la Sala que éstas, lejos de intentar despejar una duda que incida en la parte resolutiva de la decisión, se dirige a revivir un asunto ya zanjado por vía de control abstracto de constitucionalidad.

Reitera, que la Corporación no está facultada para establecer el sentido de sus decisiones más allá del texto de la sentencia emitida, menos aún, para evaluar la corrección de las providencias de los jueces de la República que se sustenten en ellas, pues se lo impide los principios de autonomía e independencia judicial que rigen la función jurisdiccional.

Se RECHAZA, por improcedente, la petición de aclaración formulada.

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 por improcedente la solicitud de aclaracion de la Sentencia C-757 de 2014, presentada por Gustavo Ducuara Lopez.
  2. Segundo. COMUNICAR la presente providencia al peticionario, con la advertencia que contra esta decision 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

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.