JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 24, 2014

A- de 2014

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 Arleys Cuesta Simanca Y Otro

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.

Accion Publica De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Carácter rogado de la competencia
  • Requisitos
Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Admisión y rechazo
  • Razones claras, ciertas, específicas, pertinentes y suficientes
Recurso De Suplica
  • Etapa procesal posterior a la admisión y rechazo de las demandas de inconstitucionalidad
5 topics · 7 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 dictado por el magistrado Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, para rechazar la demanda de la referencia, por no cumplir con los requisitos de claridad, especificidad y suficiencia de los cargos planteados.

La Corte constata que los problemas advertidos en los autos de inadmisión y rechazo no fueron efectivamente corregidos por los demandantes, por lo que decide CONFIRMAR en todas sus partes, 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 en todas sus partes el Auto del 30 de mayo de 2014, proferido por el despacho del Magistrado ponente en el proceso D-10214, doctor Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por los ciudadanos Arleys Cuesta Simanca y Andres Ricardo Robayo Romero, en contra del Decreto Ley 4142 de 2011.
  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.