JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 3, 2017

A- de 2017

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

Reporting justice Carlos Libardo Bernal Pulido

✓Claimant Gabriel Ibarra Pardo

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 Rechazo Demanda
  • Procedencia de la admisión de la demanda por cumplimiento de la carga procesal mínima
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 en contra del auto que rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad de la referencia.

Tanto el auto de inadmisión como el de rechazo se fundamentaron en el incumplimiento de los requisitos de especificidad y suficiencia.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación considera que la demanda cumple con la carga argumentativa requerida para que surjan cuestionamientos sobre la constitucionalidad de la norma y con base en ello decide revocar el auto recurrido en súplica y ordenar la admisión de la demanda.

Se dispone que el proceso continúe bajo la conducción de la Magistrada

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. REVOCAR el auto de 5 de septiembre de 2017 y, en su lugar, ADMITIR la demanda de la referencia.
  2. Segundo. CONTINUAR con el proceso de constitucionalidad bajo la conduccion de la Magistrada Sustanciadora inicial, en los terminos del articulo 50 del Acuerdo 2 de 2015.
  3. Tercero. Comunicar el contenido de esta decision al recurrente.
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.