JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 1, 2018

A- de 2018

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

Reporting justice José Fernando Reyes Cuartas

✓Claimant Bernardo Alejandro Guerra Hoyos

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 Nulidad Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Requisitos formales y materiales de procedencia
  • Negar por cuanto no existió vulneración del debido proceso y se pretende reabrir debate jurídico
2 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Incidente de nulidad contra la Sentencia T-695/17.

El accionado consideró que en el fallo de la referencia se configuraron las siguientes causales de nulidad: 1º.

Omisión arbitraria de análisis de asuntos de relevancia constitucional y, 2º.

Cambio de la jurisprudencia sentada por la Sala Plena de la Corporación o la jurisprudencia en vigor de las Salas de Revisión.

La Corte considera que el peticionario incumple con la carga argumentativa necesaria para estructurar los cuestionamientos formulados y que sólo pretende reabrir un debate ya concluido.

Se RECHAZA.

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. RECHAZAR la solicitud de nulidad presentada por el concejal Bernardo Alejandro Guerra Hoyos contra la sentencia T-695 de 2017, proferida por la Sala Sexta de Revision de tutelas de la Corte Constitucional.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta 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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

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