JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 30, 2016

A- de 2016

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

Reporting justice Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado

✓Claimant Oscar Ivan Palacio Tamayo Y Otro

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
  • Se confirma rechazo de la demanda por carecer de pertinencia y suficiencia
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 la referencia, por cuanto los accionantes no la corrigieron dentro del término establecido en el auto de inadmisión.

Tras considerar que le asistió la razón al magistrado sustanciador, la Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió CONFIRMAR la providencia recurrida.

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.

See the operative part (3 points)
  1. PRIMERO. CONFIRMAR en todas sus partes el auto del 1o de noviembre de 2016, proferido por el Magistrado Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo en el proceso D-11679, mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda presentada por los ciudadanos Oscar Ivan Palacio Tamayo y Fredy Alexander Gutierrez Vargas, contra el literal l del articulo 151C de la Ley 100 de 1993, tal como fue adicionado por el articulo 3deg de la Ley 1580 de 201211, "Por la cual se crea la pension familiar.".
  2. SEGUNDO. A traves de la Secretaria General de la Corte, comuniquese el contenido de esta decision al recurrente, indicandole que contra esta no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Archivese el expediente.
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.