JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 26, 2020

A- de 2020

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

Reporting justice Alejandro Linares Cantillo

✓Claimant Arnoldo Chiquillo Oliver

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.

2 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.

La demanda fue rechazada porque el actor dejó correr los términos de ejecutoria del auto de inadmisión sin emitir pronunciamiento alguno.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación corroboró el carácter extemporáneo del recurso interpuesto y, por ello, resolvió RECHAZARLO.

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 (3 points)
  1. Primero. RECHAZAR el recurso de suplica presentado contra el Auto del 14 de octubre de 2020, proferido por el Magistrado Jorge Enrique Ibanez Najar, que rechazo la demanda de inconstitucionalidad formulada por el ciudadano Arnaldo Chiquillo Oliver, en contra de del articulo 29 de la Ley 65 de 1993, "por el cual se expide el Codigo Penitenciario y Carcelarios", radicada con el numero D-13924, por las razones expuestas en el presente auto.
  2. Segundo. COMUNICAR, a traves de la Secretaria General de la Corte, el contenido de esta decision a la parte demandante, indicandole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno. Este tramite debe realizarse en el Centro Penitenciario y Carcelario en donde se encuentra recluido y debera entregarsele una copia completa de la presente decision.
  3. Tercero. ARCHIVAR el expediente D-13924.
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
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.