JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 23, 2015

A- de 2015

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

Reporting justice Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado

✓Claimant Jorge Luis Rhenals Ayala Y Otro

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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se resuelven dos solicitudes de nulidad presentadas en contra de la sentencia SU.053/15.

Los peticionarios argumentaron que dicha providencia les violó su derecho fundamental al debido proceso.

Luego de pronunciarse sobre la posibilidad excepcional de declarar la nulidad de las decisiones de la Corte Constitucional, la Sala Plena decide, rechazar por extemporánea, una de las peticiones de nulidad y, negar la otra.

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 (4 points)
  1. PRIMERO. RECHAZAR por extemporanea, la solicitud de nulidad parcial de la sentencia SU- 053 de 2015, formulada por el senor Luis Carlos Gomez Santa.
  2. SEGUNDO. NEGAR la peticion de nulidad de la sentencia SU-053 de 2014, formulada por el senor Jorge Luis Rhenals Ayala.
  3. TERCERO. ORDENAR, por intermedio de la Secretaria General de la Corte Constitucional, la remision del expediente T-3.430.788 al Secretario General de la Sala Plena de lo Contencioso Administrativo del Consejo de Estado.
  4. CUARTO. Contra este pronunciamiento 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.