JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)November 21, 2002

T-1020 de 2002

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant Personero Municipal De Sincelejo Y Otros Vs. Electrocosta Y Otra

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho Al Debido Proceso. Suspension Irregular Del Servicio De Energia. Falta De Notificacion. Contrato De Prestacion De Servicios Publicos Domiciliarios. Cambio Y Revision De Medidores. Imposicion De Sanciones. Concedida .
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.

Acción De Tutela
  • Corte de servicio público en forma irregular
Debido Proceso
  • Irregularidades en corte de energía
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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.

See the operative part (3 points)
  1. Primero. CONFIRMAR los fallos proferidos por el Juzgado 2 Civil Municipal de Sincelejo de fecha cinco (5), catorce (14) y dieciseis (16) de agosto de dos mil dos (2002), dentro de las acciones de tutela instauradas por los senores Edith Berter Garces; Gustavo Andres Corrales Carrascal en nombre propio y por medio del Personero Municipal de Sincelejo lo senores Mirian Perez Acosta, Claudina Gamboa, Julia Eva Gil Gil, Lilia Arrazola de Barrios, Dalgis Cardenas, Domingo Hernandez, Evelin de Fernandez, Pablo Diaz y Dolly Claro de Meyer respectivamente contra la Electrificadora de la Costa Atlantica S.A. ESP - Electrocosta, por las razones expuestas en la parte motiva de esta sentencia.
  2. Ademas CONFIRMAR el fallo dictado dentro de la accion de tutela de la senora Matilde Maldonado Pinzon contra la empresa CODENSA S.A. ESP de Bogota, por el Juzgado 19 Civil del Circuito de Bogota el cinco (5) de agosto de dos mil dos (2002), de acuerdo con lo dicho en el presente proveido.
  3. Segundo. Por Secretaria General, librense las comunicaciones de que trata el articulo 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.