JurídicoESEN
Constitutional review ruling (C)May 22, 2002Full bench

C-396 de 2002

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

Reporting justice Rodrigo Escobar Gil

✓Claimant Carlos Ossa Escobar

✓
Topic · hard data
Cosa Juzgada Constitucional En Control Fiscal En Empresas De Servicios Públicos Domiciliarios Con Participación Del Estado
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
  • Control fiscal en empresas de servicios públicos domiciliarios con participación del Estado
Cosa Juzgada Material
  • Contenido normativo idéntico
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Ley 689 de 2001.

Art. 5.

Modifica ley 142 de 1994.

Servicios publicos domiciliarios.

Control fiscal.

Cosa juzgada constitucional.

Decreto 266 de 2000.

Estese a lo resuelto en c-290/02 y c-1191/00

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

What it decided

Holdings on Decreto 266/00. Hard data, verified against the operative part — citable.

Art. 37Decreto 266/00ESTARSE A LO RESUELTO
Art. 5Ley 689/01ESTARSE A LO RESUELTO
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.

  1. PRIMERO. ESTARSE A LO RESUELTO en la Sentencia C-1191 de 2000, que declaro inexequible el articulo 37 del Decreto 266 de 2000. En consecuencia, declarar INEXEQUIBLE la ultima frase del primer inciso de la Ley 689 de 2001, pues esta reproduce un contenido normativo del articulo 37 del Decreto 266 de 2000.
  2. SEGUNDO. ESTARSE A LO RESUELTO en la Sentencia C-290 de 2002, que declaro inexequibles las primeras dos frases del
  3. segundo. inciso del articulo 5o de la Ley 689 de 2001.
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.