JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)June 16, 1994

T-279 de 1994

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

Reporting justice Eduardo Cifuentes Muñoz

✓Claimant Ana Graciela Romero De Moya

✓
Topic · hard data
Der. De Peticion. Reliquidacion Pensional. Silencio Admtivo. 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 De Peticion
  • Pronta resolución
  • Aplicación inmediata
Administracion
  • Obligación de resolver peticiones
  • Omisión
3 topics · 4 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 la sentencia del 13 de diciembre de 1993, proferida por el Juzgado
  2. Sexto. Laboral del Circuito de Santa Fe de Bogota.
  3. SEGUNDO. CONCEDER la tutela de los derechos fundamentales de peticion, a la seguridad social, al pago oportuno y al reajuste periodico de la pension a la peticionaria ANA GRACIELA ROMERO DE MOYA. En consecuencia, se ordena a la Caja de Prevision Social de Santa Fe de Bogota D.C, que en el termino de cuarenta y ocho (48) horas contados a partir de la notificacion de la presente providencia, resuelva definitivamente sobre la peticion formulada por la petente el dia 6 de abril de 1989, relativa a la reliquidacion de su pension de jubilacion.
  4. TERCERO. LIBRESE comunicacion al mencionado Juzgado, con miras a que se surta la notificacion de esta providencia, segun lo establecido en 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.