JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 15, 2023

A- de 2023

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

Reporting justice Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera

✓Claimant Hernández Escobar Ramón Horacio·Respondent --

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.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda
  • Demandante debe efectuar razonamiento mínimo para constatar yerro o arbitrariedad
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.

La demanda se rechazó porque el actor no subsanó las deficiencias argumentativas advertidas en el auto de inadmisión.

Luego de analizar los argumentos del recurrente, la Sala Plena de la Corporación consideró que éstos fueron insuficientes y, por tanto, que se incurrió en una falta de motivación que le impedía emitir un pronunciamiento de fondo.

Con base en lo anterior se RECHAZÓ, por improcedente, 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.

See the operative part (25 points)
  1. Primero. RECHAZAR, por improcedente, el recurso de súplica interpuesto por el ciudadano Ramón Horacio Hernández Escobar en contra del auto de 16 de febrero de 2023 que rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad en contra del artículo 67 (parcial) de la Ley 694 de 2005.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia no procede recurso alguno.
  3. Tercero. Ejecutoriada esta decisión, archívese el expediente.
  4. Notifíquese y cúmplase.
  5. DIANA FAJARDO RIVERA
  6. Presidenta
  7. NATALIA ÁNGEL CABO
  8. Magistrada
  9. JUAN CARLOS CORTÉS GONZÁLEZ
  10. Magistrado
  11. JORGE ENRIQUE IBÁÑEZ NAJAR
  12. Magistrado
  13. ALEJANDRO LINARES CANTILLO
  14. Magistrado
  15. Ausente con permiso
  16. ANTONIO JOSÉ LIZARAZO OCAMPO
  17. Magistrado
  18. No participa
  19. PAOLA ANDREA MENESES MOSQUERA
  20. Magistrada
  21. CRISTINA PARDO SCHLESINGER
  22. Magistrada
  23. JOSE FERNANDO REYES CUARTAS
  24. Magistrado
  25. MARTHA VICTORIA SÁCHICA MÉNDEZ
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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera
Reporting justice
✓
Alejandro Linares Cantillo
Impedido
✓
Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
Magistrado
✓
Cristina Pardo Schlesinger
Magistrado
✓
Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
Presidente
✓
Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar
Magistrado
✓
José Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Magistrado
✓
Juan Carlos Cortés González
Magistrado
✓
Natalia Ángel Cabo
Magistrado
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.