JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 25, 2017

A- de 2017

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 Ministerio De Ambiente Y Desarrollo Sostenible

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)

El Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible presentó solicitud de aclaración de la Sentencia T-622/16, con el objeto de tener mayor certeza sobre diferentes aspectos técnicos relacionados con la implementación de órdenes de la providencia; obtener una prórroga de los términos de cumplimiento de algunas de esas disposiciones y, sugerir a la Corporación la convocatoria a una audiencia para que los expertos del MADS les sustenten las inquietudes que el fallo genera para su adecuada aplicación.

Para la Sala resulta claro que el objeto de la petición no es despejar dudas respecto al alcance de las disposiciones contenidas en la parte resolutiva de la providencia mencionada, sino más bien en aspectos relativos al cumplimiento de la misma.

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 aclaracion de la sentencia T-622 de 2016, formulada por la ciudadana Sandra Alfonso Palacios en representacion del Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible.
  2. SEGUNDO. Por Secretaria General de la Corte Constitucional, REMITIR el expediente de tutela T-5.016.242 a la Seccion Cuarta del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de Cundinamarca para los fines pertinentes.
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.