JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 23, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva

✓Claimant Leonor Rodriguez Gomez

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.

Solicitud De Aclaración De Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Improcedencia por cuanto la determinación adoptada por la Corte, es suficientemente clara y precisa
2 topics · 2 subtopics · 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 T-457/14.

La peticionaria pretende que la Corte ordene una lipectomía no solo abdominal, sino también de miembros inferiores y superiores, lo cual resulta sustancialmente diferente a lo formulado y concedido en el trámite de la acción de tutela.

La Sala considera que lo pretendido no resulta procedente, puesto que la aclaración no recae ni tiene que ver con una incertidumbre en la parte motiva, ni con los efectos en la parte resolutiva, ni directamente con la claridad de la orden contenida en el dispositivo del fallo, sino que se trata, prácticamente, de una solicitud diferente, que ni siquiera cuenta con respaldo médico.

IMPROCEDENTE.

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. Declarar IMPROCEDENTE la solicitud de aclaracion elevada por Leonor Rodriguez Gomez, en relacion con la ORDEN SEGUNDA contenida en la parte resolutiva de la Sentencia T-457 de 2014, emitida por la Sala Novena de Revision Constitucional.
  2. Contra el presente auto 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.