JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 3, 2021

A- de 2021

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 Alejandro Matta Herrera 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.

2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Con el presente auto se RECHAZA por falta de legitimación y, por ende, de pertinencia, la recusación elevada dentro del expediente D-14043 en contra de los magistrados que componen la Sala Plena de la Corporación, a excepción del magistrado Alberto Rojas Ríos, cuya recusación se resolvió en otra providencia, y en contra la Procuradora General de la Nación.

Lo anterior, tras observar que ninguno de los ciudadanos actuó como demandante, ni presentó una intervención oportunamente para defender o cuestionar la constitucionalidad de la disposición acusada

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 falta de legitimación y, por ende, de pertinencia, la recusación elevada dentro del expediente D-14043 por Agustina Camargo Martínez, Astolfo Eduardo Moreno C, Carmen Alicia Martínez Rivera, Carolina Castiblanco Rojas, María del Pilar Castiblanco Rojas y Gloria Yolanda Martínez Rivera contra los magistrados que componen la Sala Plena, a excepción del magistrado Alberto Rojas Ríos, cuya recusación se resuelve en otra providencia, y contra la Procuradora General de la Nación, conforme a lo expuesto en esta decisión.
  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

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