JurídicoESEN
Constitutional review ruling (C)October 12, 2004Full bench

C-1001 de 2004

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

Reporting justice Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa

✓Claimant Harold Hernan Moreno Cardona

✓
Topic · hard data
Fallo Inhibitorio Por Ineptitud De Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad Contra Norma Del Estatuto Tributario
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.

Inhibicion De La Corte Constitucional
  • Cargos que adolecen de certeza y pertinencia
  • Cargos no específicos
  • Rentas de trabajo exentas
Accion Publica De Inconstitucionalidad
  • No resolución de casos concretos
  • Requisitos
4 topics · 7 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Estatuto tributario (decreto 694 de 1989) arts. 206 numeral 10 (parcial) 392 (parcial) y 594 (parcial).

Rentas de trabajo exentas.

Pagos o abonos sujetos a retencion en la fuente y tarifas de retencion en la fuente.

Inhibicion de la corte constitucional

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

What it decided

Holdings on Decreto 624/89. Hard data, verified against the operative part — citable.

Art. 206Decreto 624/89DECLINED TO RULE
Art. 206Decreto 624/89DECLINED TO RULE
Art. 392Decreto 624/89DECLINED TO RULE
Art. 594Decreto 624/89 «parcial»DECLINED TO RULE
4 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.

  1. en nombre del pueblo y por mandato de la Constitucion,
  2. RESUELVE
  3. INHIBIRSE de pronunciarse acerca de la constitucionalidad los articulos 206 numeral 10 (parcial), 392 (parcial) y 594 (parcial) del Estatuto Tributario.
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.