JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 21, 2017

A- de 2017

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

Reporting justice Luis Guillermo Guerrero Pérez

✓Claimant Gladys Sanchez Castro

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 interpuesto en contra del auto que rechazó la demanda de la referencia, en virtud de que el escrito de corrección no enmendó ninguna de las falencias identificadas en el auto de inadmisión.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación considera que la accionante no ofreció los elementos básicos para la realización del control constitucional de los instrumentos jurídicos demandados.

Aduce, que ni haciendo un amplio esfuerzo hermenéutico de la demanda y del escrito de corrección es posible entender satisfechos los requisitos elementales para dar trámite al proceso de la referencia, por lo que no hay razón alguna para revocar los autos del magistrado sustanciador del caso que inadmitió y rechazó la causa.

En consecuencia, se NIEGA el recurso impetrado.

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. RESUELVE
  2. CONFIRMAR el auto del día 2 de mayo de 2017 proferido por el magistrado encargado Hernán Correa Cardozo, por medio del cual se rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad correspondiente al expediente D-12015.
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.