JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 12, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Blanca Cecilia Torres Quiroga

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.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Se confirma rechazo por cuanto la demanda no señala la norma acusada como inconstitucional y carece de pertinencia y certeza para iniciar el control constitucional
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica interpuesto contra el auto que rechazó la demanda de la referencia, por cuanto el escrito de corrección no subsanó los defectos advertidos en el auto inadmisorio.

La Sala Plena considera que la demanda persiste en una proposición jurídica inexistente, que no tiene efectos reales sobre el derecho y que parte de una apreciación subjetiva en un caso concreto adverso a los intereses de la actora.

Con base en lo anterior, la Corte decide CONFIRMAR la providencia recurrida.

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. CONFIRMAR el Auto del veinte (20) de septiembre de dos mil dieciseis (2016), mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda formulada por la ciudadana Blanca Cecilia Torres Quiroga, contra "el termino de inmediatez en la presentacion de una tutela por violar la Constitucion", radicada bajo la referencia D-11618.
  2. SEGUNDO. COMUNIQUESE la presente providencia a la actora, informandole que contra esta decision 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.