JurídicoESEN
Constitutional review ruling (C)January 31, 2001Full bench

C-094 de 2001

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

Reporting justice Alvaro Tafur Galvis

✓Claimant Julian Alberto Arias Martinez

✓
Topic · hard data
Cosa Juzgada Constitucional En Indemnización Por Supresión De Cargo De Carrera
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.

Cosa Juzgada Constitucional
  • Indemnización por supresión de cargo de carrera
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Ley 443 de 1998.

Art. 39 parag. 2 (p.).

Carrera administrativa.

Derechos del empleado en caso de supresion del cargo.

Indemnizacion.

Cosa juzgada material.

Estese a lo resuelto en c-370/99

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
02

What it decided

Holdings on Ley 443/98. Hard data, verified against the operative part — citable.

Art. 2Ley 443/98DECLINED TO RULE
Art. 39Ley 443/98DECLINED TO RULE
2 holdings · source: operative part of the ruling
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

See the operative part (4 points)
  1. en nombre del pueblo y por mandato de la Constitución,
  2. R E S U E L V E:
  3. 1. ESTAR A LO RESUELTO en la sentencia C-370/99 M.P. Carlos Gaviria Díaz, en relación con la expresión "en el evento de que el empleado opte por la indemnización o la reciba" contenida en el parágrafo 2º del artículo 39 de la ley 443 de 1998.
  4. 2. Declararse INHIBIDA para emitir pronunciamiento de fondo en relación con la expresión "el acto administrativo en que esta conste prestará mérito ejecutivo" contenida en el parágrafo 2º del artículo 39 de la ley 443 de 1998.
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.