JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 19, 2015

A- de 2015

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

Reporting justice Luis Guillermo Guerrero Pérez

✓Claimant Emmanuel Vargas Penagos

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
  • Negar por cuanto los cargos propuestos por el peticionario son infundados
  • Requisitos formales y materiales de procedencia
1 topic · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de nulidad de la sentencia T-904/14.

El peticionario considera que en la providencia cuestionada se incurrió en un cambio de jurisprudencia, en particular respecto de la sentencia C-274/13, en materia del derecho de acceso a la información pública.

Tras verificar que los cargos formulados resultan infundados, la Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió NEGAR la nulidad formulada.

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. NEGAR la solicitud de nulidad interpuesta por el senor Emmanuel Vargas Penagos contra la Sentencia T-902 de 2014, proferida por la Sala Tercera de Revision, por las razones expuestas en la parte motiva de esta providencia.
  2. SEGUNDO. COMUNIQUESE la presente providencia al peticionario, con la advertencia que contra esta decision no procede ningun recurso.
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.

Separate opinions — text available1
DissentJorge Iván Palacio Palacio
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
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.