JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)June 4, 2009

T-397 de 2009

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

Reporting justice Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub

✓Claimant Jose Gregorio Andrade Mejia·Respondent Agencia Presidencial Para La Accion Social Y La Cooperacion Internacional

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.

3 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Derechos a la vida, minimo vital, alimentacion, estabilidad economica y a una vivienda digna que ciudadano alega violados por la entidad demandada, debido a que le fue negada la entrega de la ayuda humanitaria por no aparecer en el registro unico para desplazados. <br>en vista de que el actor no se encuentra inscrito en el mencionado sistema de registro y dado que, ni siquiera, se allego declaracion o prueba alguna de la condicion de desplazamiento, la sala entendio insatisfechos los requisitos para el reconocimiento de la ayuda humanitaria. <br>negada <br>

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
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.

  1. PRIMERO. CONFIRMAR la sentencia de fecha 22 de octubre de 2008, proferida por el Juzgado
  2. Primero. Civil del Circuito de Santa Marta, mediante la cual se niega el amparo de los derechos invocados por el senor Jose Gregorio Andrade Mejia.
  3. SEGUNDO. LIBRESE por Secretaria la comunicacion de que trata el articulo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991, para los efectos alli contemplados.
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.