JurídicoESEN
Constitutional review ruling (C)September 18, 1997Full bench

C-445 de 1997

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

Reporting justice Hernando Herrera Vergara

✓Claimant Julio Cesar Torres

✓
Topic · hard data
Ley 335/96. Art. 16 Paragrafo 2 Parcial. Ley De Television. Cambio De Las Bandas De Vhf. Exequible E Inexequible.
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.

Comision Nacional De Television
  • Ejecución de políticas legislativas
  • Desconocimiento de autonomía
Espectro Electromagnetico
  • Competencia para regular uso
Television
  • Permiso a particulares para operar canales
3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
02

What it decided

Holdings on Ley 335/96. Hard data, verified against the operative part — citable.

Art. 16Ley 335/96STRUCK DOWN· phrase
Phrase struck down«parágrafo 2»
Art. 2Ley 335/96STRUCK DOWN
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 (5 points)
  1. en nombre del pueblo y por mandato de la Constitución,
  2. R E S U E L V E :
  3. Primero. Declarar INEXEQUIBLE la expresión "previo el visto bueno del Ministerio de Comunicaciones" contenida en el parágrafo 2o. del artículo 16 de la Ley 335 de 1996.
  4. Segundo. Declarar EXEQUIBLE la expresión "..pudiendo hacer cambios dentro de las bandas del VHF, pero en todo caso sin desmejorar las condiciones que tienen los operadores públicos de televisión a la vigencia de la presente
  5. ley..." consagrada en el parágrafo 2o. del artículo 16 de la Ley 335 de 1996, con base en las razones señaladas en la parte motiva de esta providencia.
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.