JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)April 10, 2000

T-411 de 2000

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

Reporting justice Eduardo Cifuentes Muñoz

✓Claimant Maria Smith Gomez Hernandez Y Otros

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Igualdad. Regulacion Juridica De Los Subsidios De Tratamiento Para Los Enfermos De Lepra. Agua De Dios. 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 Igualdad
  • Diferenciación positiva
  • Pago de subsidio a enfermos de lepra
Subsidio De Tratamiento A Enfermos De Lepra
  • No es incompatible con otra asignación del tesoro público
3 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 (4 points)
  1. Primero. REVOCAR el fallo proferido por el Juzgado
  2. Primero. Civil del Circuito de Girardot, el dia 17 de agosto de 1999, por medio del cual se nego la tutela impetrada por los actores y, en consecuencia, se revoco la sentencia dictada por el Juzgado Promiscuo Municipal de Agua de Dios, el dia 2 de julio de 1999. Por lo tanto, se CONCEDE el amparo solicitado por los ciudadanos Maria Smith Gomez Hernandez, Orlando Duran, Camilo Lopez, Luz Elvira Almanza Duarte, Pablo Julio Perez Saavedra, Rosalba Garzon de Puentes, Ezequiel Antonio Castano Escobar y Maria Isabel Vargas de Galindo.
  3. Segundo. ORDENAR al demandado que proceda a reanudar el pago de los subsidios suspendidos a los actores mediante resolucion No. 118 de 1999.
  4. Tercero. Por Secretaria, librese la comunicacion prevista 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.