JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)October 25, 2001

T-1134 de 2001

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

Reporting justice Luis Eduardo Montealegre Lynett

✓Claimant Libia Ines Gomez Toloza Vs. Iss Santander·Respondent Sin Información

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Salud Y Vida De Menor De Edad. Solicitud Intervencion Oftalmologica. Mora En El Pago De Aportes Por Parte Del Empleador. Accion De Repeticion. 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.

Derecho A La Salud Del Menor
  • Cirugía oftalmológica
  • Amenaza por mora patronal en aportes a seguridad social
1 topic · 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 (5 points)
  1. Primero. REVOCAR la sentencia proferida por el Juzgado
  2. Quinto. Penal del Circuito de Bucaramanga de 30 de julio de 2001, al resolver sobre la acción de tutela incoada por Libia Inés Gómez Toloza. En consecuencia, CONCEDER la protección solicitada.
  3. Segundo. ORDENAR al Instituto de Seguros Sociales que lleve a cabo la operación de tipo oftalmológico que requiere la menor MARÍA JOSÉ NARANJO GÓMEZ para recuperar su salud, sin perjuicio de que repita contra el empleador por los costos correspondientes.
  4. Tercero. ORDENAR al Instituto de Seguros Sociales que tome las medidas legales y administrativas necesarias para que el patrono que aparece como moroso en los hechos de este caso, cancele los aportes, obrero-patronales que le adeuda.
  5. Cuarto. Por Secretaria 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.