JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)September 1, 1995

T-384 de 1995

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

Reporting justice Carlos Gaviria Díaz

✓Claimant Jose Vicente Vargas

✓
Topic · hard data
Der. A La Igualdad. Der. A La Educacion. Autonomia Universitaria. Pago De Matricula. Universidad La Gran Colombia. 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 Educación
  • Vulneración por falta de pago
Estudiante
  • Trato discriminatorio
Plantel Educativo
  • Pago extemporáneo
Reglamento Universitario
  • Aplicación irregular
5 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 (7 points)
  1. PRIMERO. REVOCAR el fallo del Juzgado Cuarenta y Siete Penal del Circuito de Santafe de Bogota D.C., del 14 de febrero de 1995.
  2. SEGUNDO. CONCEDER la tutela a Jose Vicente Vargas Rojas por considerar vulnerados sus derechos a la igualdad y a la educacion. Se ordena en consecuencia a la Universidad La Gran Colombia autorizar a dicho senor el pago de la matricula correspondiente al
  3. segundo. semestre academico de 1994, validar las calificaciones obtenidas por el y autorizar su matricula para cursar el
  4. noveno. semestre en 1996.
  5. TERCERO. CONFIRMAR el fallo de Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Santafe de Bogota D.C.
  6. CUARTO. REMITIR copia de esta providencia al Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educacion Superior - ICFES -, para los fines que le incumben.
  7. Comuniquese, notifiquese, cumplase,
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.