JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 18, 2015

A- de 2015

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Director Terriotorial Huila-Caqueta-Putumayo De La Esap

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
  • Procedencia excepcional del artículo 285 del Código General del Proceso
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-238/15.

El Director Territorial (e) de la ESAP, Territorial Huila-Caquetá-Putumayo solicitó a la Corporación aclarar los numerales tercero y cuarto de la parte resolutiva de la precitada providencia.

La Sala de Revisión declara que la solicitud de aclaración resulta IMPROCEDENTE por extemporánea, toda vez que no se presentó dentro de los tres días siguientes a la notificación de la sentencia, sino diecisiete días después de su ejecutoria.

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, por extemporánea, la solicitud de aclaración de la Sentencia T-238 de 2015 presentada por el Director Territorial (e) de la Escuela Superior de Administración Pública- ESAP Territorial Huila- Caquetá-Putumayo.
  2. Segundo. Por Secretaría General de esta Corporación, COMUNÍQUESE este Auto a los interesados.
  3. Tercero. Contra la presente providencia 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.

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.