JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 2, 2015

A- de 2015

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 Wilmer De La Hoz Melo, En Calidad De Inspector Unico De Policia De Cienaga, Magdalena

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 Nulidad O Aclaracion De Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • No sirven para reabrir debate sobre hechos que motivaron un fallo de tutela
  • Se niega por cuanto no se configura ninguna de las causales de nulidad y tampoco la sentencia tiene apartes que generan dudas o ambigüedades
Solicitud De Aclaracion De Providencias Judiciales
  • Procedencia de conformidad con los artículos 285 y 302 del Código General del Proceso
2 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se resuelve con este auto la petición de aclaración de la sentencia T-850/12, planteada específicamente en lo relativo al ordinal tercero de su parte resolutiva.

Luego de verificar el cumplimiento de los presupuestos de procedencia de las solicitudes de aclaración de una sentencia proferida por la Corte Constitucional, la Sala de Revisión decide RECHAZAR la presente, por resultar 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. RECHAZAR por improcedente la solicitud de aclaracion de la Sentencia T-850 de 2012, presentada por el senor Wilmer Rafael de la Hoz Melo, en calidad de Inspector Unico de Policia de Cienaga (Magdalena).
  2. Segundo. COMUNIQUESE la presente providencia al peticionario y a los jueces de tutela de primera instancia en los procesos acumulados T-3.431.478 y T-3.440.281, con la advertencia que contra esta decision no procede ningun recurso.
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.

Separate opinions — text available1
ConcurrenceGabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
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.