JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)February 12, 2001

T-167 de 2001

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 Maria Nelly Pupo Gutierrez Vs. Distrito Capital

✓
Topic · hard data
Derechos Al Trabajo Igualdad Y Debido Proceso. Concurso De Meritos. Convocatoria Para Proveer Cargos De Comisario De Familia. Publicacion Lista De Elegibles. Nombramientos. 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.

Concurso De Meritos
  • Elaboración lista de elegibles
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 (4 points)
  1. Primero. REVOCAR el fallo proferido por el Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Bogota, Sala Penal, el 12 de septiembre de 2000, al resolver sobre la accion de tutela incoada por Maria Nelly Pupo Gutierrez contra el Distrito Capital.
  2. Segundo. ORDENAR al Alcalde Mayor de Bogota, D.C., que, conjuntamente con el Secretario de Gobierno, dentro de las cuarenta y ocho (48) horas siguientes a la notificacion del presente fallo, elaboren la lista de elegibles correspondiente a la Convocatoria Ndeg 1 de 1999 para proveer 13 cargos de Jefe Local (Comisario de Familia) y, de conformidad con el puntaje descendente, procedan a los nombramientos.
  3. Tercero. El incumplimiento del presente fallo sera sancionado en la forma prevista en el articulo 52 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
  4. Cuarto. Por Secretaria, librese la comunicacion 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.