JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 20, 2022

A- de 2022

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

Reporting justice Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera

✓Claimant William Steeven Marulanda 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.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Inexistencia de argumentación, razonamiento o motivación
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.

La demanda se rechazó porque la Corte Constitucional carecía de competencia para conocer de la misma.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación encontró que el recurso formulado es improcedente porque el actor no cumplió con la carga de motivación requerida para habilitar un pronunciamiento, toda vez que se limitó a reiterar los argumentos expuestos en la demanda y a cuestionar una supuesta falta de publicidad del acto administrativo demandado.

Con base en la anterior se RECHAZÓ el auto cuestionado.

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 por improcedente el recurso de súplica presentado por el ciudadano William Steeven Marulanda Hoyos contra el Auto del 11 de marzo de 2022 que, a su vez, rechazó la demanda relativa al expediente D-14678.
  2. SEGUNDO. A través de la Secretaría General de la Corte Constitucional, COMUNICAR el contenido de esta decisión al demandante, indicándole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decisión, ARCHIVAR el expediente D-14678.
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
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

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