JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)April 3, 2003

T-279 de 2003

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant Jorge Enrique Garzon Ceron Iss Cauca

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Seguridad Social. Solicitud Reconocimiento Pension De Vejez. Expedicion Y Emision Del Bono Pensional. Carencia Actual De Objeto. Seis Meses Para Resolver. Llamado A Prevencion. Ley 700 De 2001. 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 Pension De Jubilacion
  • Reconocimiento o pago no puede condicionarse a emisión o pago del bono pensional
Entidad Publica
  • Negligencia en trámite de pensiones
Bono Pensional
  • Expedición y emisión
  • Pronta tramitación
  • Demora en emisión afecta derechos fundamentales
3 topics · 5 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 el trece (13) de diciembre de dos mil dos (2002), por el Juzgado 4 Penal del Circuito de Popayan, dentro de la accion de tutela instaurada por el senor Jorge Enrique Garzon Ceron contra el Seguro Social Seccional Cauca.
  2. Segundo. DECLARAR la carencia actual de objeto, por las razones senaladas en la presente sentencia.
  3. Tercero. PREVENIR al Seguro Social Seccional Cauca para que en adelante no vuelva a incurrir en las omisiones y dilaciones que dieron origen a la presente accion de tutela.
  4. Cuarto. 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.