JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)September 16, 1993

T-397 de 1993

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

Reporting justice Vladimiro Naranjo Mesa

✓Claimant Raul Bernal

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho De Peticion. Construccion De Via. Contribucion Por Valorizacion. 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.

Acción De Tutela
  • Hecho consumado
  • Vulneración actual de derechos
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 (5 points)
  1. en nombre del pueblo y por mandato de la Constitucion,
  2. R E S U E L V E :
  3. Primero. REVOCAR el fallo proferido por el H. Tribunal Administrativo de Antioquia el dia 30 de abril de 1993, que denego la accion de tutela interpuesta por el ciudadano Raul Bernal Arango, por cuanto no considero la violacion del derecho fundamental de peticion del actor.
  4. Segundo. TUTELAR unicamente el derecho fundamental de peticion del ciudadano Raul Bernal Arango y, en consecuencia, ordenar a Municipios Asociados del Valle de Aburra que, en el termino de cuarenta y ocho (48) horas contados a partir de la notificacion de esta providencia, responda a las solicitudes elevadas por el senor Bernal Arango, relacionadas con el cobro de la contribucion por valorizacion, de acuerdo con las razones expuestas en esta providencia.
  5. Tercero. ORDENAR que por la Secretaria General de esta Corproacion se comunique esta providencia al H. Tribunal Administrativo de Antioquia, en la forma y para los efectos previstos 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.