JurídicoESEN
Constitutional review ruling (C)June 8, 2000Full bench

C-666 de 2000

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

Reporting justice José Gregorio Hernández Galindo

✓Claimant Hernan Antonio Barrera Bravo

✓
Topic · hard data
Funciones Administrativas Por Entes Vinculados. Atribución Por Parte Del Legislador
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.

6 topics · 6 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Ley 6/92.

Art. 112 parcial.

Facultad de cobro coactivo para las entidades nacionales.

Exequibles e inexequibles.

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

What it decided

Holdings on Ley 6/92. Hard data, verified against the operative part — citable.

Art. 112Ley 6/92UPHELD
1 holding · 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 Constitución,
  2. RESUELVE:
  3. Declarar EXEQUIBLES las palabras "y vinculados" del artículo 112 de la Ley 6ª de 1992, pero en el entendido de que la autorización legal para ejercer el poder coactivo se refiere exclusivamente al cobro o recaudación de recursos provenientes de funciones netamente administrativas confiadas por el legislador de modo expreso a los entes vinculados, siempre que en la misma norma legal correspondiente se autorice la función de ejecución coactiva y se determinen las condiciones de su ejercicio, únicamente en cuanto a los aludidos recursos. Bajo cualquiera otra interpretación, los mencionados vocablos se declaran INEXEQUIBLES.
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.

Separate opinions — text available1
ConcurrenceJosé Gregorio Hernández Galindo
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
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.