JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)April 17, 2001

T-393 de 2001

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

Reporting justice Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra

✓Claimant Jeni Isabel Piedrahita Vs. Consejo Superior De La Judicatura

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho Al Debido Proceso. No Reformatio In Pejus. Concurso Para Proveer Cargos En La Rama Judicial. Disminucion Del Puntaje Total. Via De Hecho. Revocatoria Directa De Actos Administrativos. Concedida Parcialmente.
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.

Debido Proceso
  • Vulneración por disminución puntaje en concurso de méritos
Revocacion Directa De Acto Administrativo Particular Y Concreto
  • Consentimiento expreso y escrito del titular
3 topics · 3 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 (2 points)
  1. PRIMERO. CONFIRMAR PARCIALMENTE la sentencia de segunda instancia de la Sala de Familia del Tribunal Superior de Antioquia del 6 de septiembre de 2000, en cuanto concedio la accion de tutela instaurada por Jeni Isabel Piedrahita contra el Consejo Superior de la Judicatura, Sala Administrativa, pero por las razones expuestas en el presente fallo. En consecuencia, queda en firme la decision que declaro la nulidad de la Resolucion 637 de 2000 del Consejo Superior de la Judicatura y se retrotrae el procedimiento para los efectos indicados en la parte motiva de este fallo.
  2. SEGUNDO. Por Secretaria se dara cumplimiento a lo ordenado 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.