JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)January 19, 2005

T-009 de 2005

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 Marleny Diaz De Cruz Vs. Cajanal

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.

Derecho De Peticion Ante Caja Nacional
  • Respuesta de fondo sobre reliquidación pensión de régimen especial
Derecho De Peticion En Materia Pensional
  • Términos para resolver
  • Término de cuatro meses para resolver solicitud
Derecho De Peticion
  • Requisitos de la respuesta
4 topics · 5 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Derecho de peticion de afiliada que solicito reliquidación de pension y no ha obtenido respuesta.

Requisitos de respuestas a derechos de peticion.

Terminos para resolver solicitudes de reconocimiento de derechos pensionales.

Concedida

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

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

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

  1. Primero. REVOCAR el fallo proferido por el Juzgado
  2. Primero. Laboral del Circuito de Bogotá el 3 de septiembre de 2004. En consecuencia, la Caja Nacional de Previsión Social, dentro de los dos días siguientes a la notificación de la presente sentencia, deberá dar respuesta de fondo a la petición presentada por el accionante.
  3. Segundo. Por Secretaria General, líbrese la comunicación de que trata el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
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.