JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 23, 2010

A- de 2010

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 Eudoro Echeverri Quintana Y Otros

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
  • Etapa procesal posterior a la admisión y rechazo de las demandas de inconstitucionalidad
Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Rechazo de plano por falta de competencia al pretender la inexequibilidad de la Constitución
3 topics · 3 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 de rechazo de fecha 6 de octubre de 2010, dictado por el Magistrado Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, en cuanto los demandantes solicitaron la declaratoria de inexequibilidad de un artículo del a Carta Política, cuya naturaleza impedía pronunciarse sobre su constitucionalidad.

La Sala Plena constata que la Corte es manifiestamente incompetente para pronunciarse sobre la norma acusada en la demanda y en tal medida desestima el recurso interpuesto, procediendo a confirmar 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 6 de octubre de 2010, proferido por el despacho del Magistrado ponente en el proceso D-8279, doctor Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por los ciudadanos Eudoro Echeverri Quintana, Juliana Diaz Ramirez y Sebastian Arias Hoyos, en contra del inciso 2 del articulo 91 de la Constitucion Politica.
  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.