JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)June 9, 2022

A- de 2022

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

Reporting justice Natalia Ángel Cabo

✓Claimant David Mauricio Leal Cortes

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 De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Incumplimiento de requisitos de certeza, especificidad, 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.

La demanda se rechazó porque en el escrito de corrección persistieron las deficiencias señaladas en la providencia de inadmisión.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación estimó que el despacho sustanciador acertó en el rechazo porque persistía el incumplimiento de los requisitos de certeza, especificidad y suficiencia y, por ello, decidió confirmar 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. CONFIRMAR el Auto del 12 de mayo de 2022, que rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad formulada por el ciudadano David Mauricio Leal Cortes contra el artículo 8 (parcial), de la Ley 2195 de 2022 "Por medio de la cual se adoptan medidas en materia de transparencia, prevención y lucha contra la corrupción y se dictan otras disposiciones", dentro del expediente con número de radicación D-14741.
  2. SEGUNDO. Contra esta providencia no procede recurso alguno.
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.