JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 30, 2022

A- de 2022

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

Reporting justice Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo

✓Claimant Colpensiones·Respondent Corte Suprema De Justicia Sala Laboral

✓
Topic · hard data
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.

Recusacion Contra Magistrado De La Corte Constitucional
  • Rechazar por impertinente
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recusación formulada en contra del magistrado Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación RECHAZÓ por improcedente la solicitud de la referencia, debido a que en el trámite de tutela no es procedente la recusación por tratarse de un trámite célere y sumario y el magistrado Ibáñez no manifestó estar incurso en alguna de las causales de impedimento para conocer o emitir fallo dentro del expediente de la referencia.

Con base en lo anterior, se dispuso que el mencionado togado continúe como ponente del asunto citado.

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 (25 points)
  1. PRIMERO. RECHAZAR POR IMPROCEDENTE la solicitud de recusación formulada por la ciudadana Anhy Durley González Durán en contra del magistrado Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar, para conocer y emitir fallo dentro del expediente T-7.867.632
  2. SEGUNDO. ADVERTIR que contra esta providencia no procede recurso.
  3. Comuníquese y cúmplase.
  4. CRISTINA PARDO SCHLESINGER
  5. Presidenta
  6. DIANA FAJARDO RIVERA
  7. Magistrada
  8. Impedimento aceptado-
  9. JORGE ENRIQUE IBA´N~EZ NAJAR
  10. Magistrado
  11. No firma-
  12. ALEJANDRO LINARES CANTILLO
  13. Magistrado
  14. Impedimento aceptado-
  15. ANTONIO JOSÉ LIZARAZO OCAMPO
  16. Magistrado
  17. PAOLA ANDREA MENESES MOSQUERA
  18. Magistrada
  19. GLORIA STELLA ORTIZ DELGADO
  20. Magistrada
  21. JOSÉ FERNANDO REYES CUARTAS
  22. Magistrado
  23. KARENA CASELLES HERNÁNDEZ
  24. Magistrada (e)
  25. MARTHA VICTORIA SÁCHICA MÉNDEZ
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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
Reporting justice
✓
Alejandro Linares Cantillo
Impedido
✓
Cristina Pardo Schlesinger
Presidente
✓
Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
Impedido
✓
Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado
Magistrado
✓
Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar
Magistrado
✓
José Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Magistrado
✓
Karena Elisama Caselles Hernández
Magistrado
✓
Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera
Magistrado
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
← cites 0cited by 1 →A. 483/22SU.107/24 — Acción De Tutela Contra Providencias Judiciales En Materia Pensional (Ineficacia Del Traslado Del Régimen De Prima Media Al De Ahorro Indivi · cited 3 timesSU.107/242024
constitutional review unification tutela
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by1

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