JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)July 17, 1992

T-466 de 1992

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

Reporting justice Ciro Angarita Baron

✓Claimant Diego Garcia

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Recreacion. Derecho A La Tranquilidad. Negada.
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.

2 topics · 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. CONFIRMAR la providencia proferida por el Juzgado
  2. Primero. Civil del Circuito de Buga el 9 de marzo del ano en curso mediante la cual nego la tutela interpuesta por los peticionarios.
  3. SEGUNDO. En todos aquellos casos similares al presente por sus hechos o circunstancias, siempre que se configure un conflicto entre la tranquilidad de la comunidad y el derecho a la recreacion y al deporte de sus habitantes, especialmente de los ninos, la doctrina constitucional enunciada en esta sentencia tendra CARACTER OBLIGATORIO para las autoridades, en los terminos del articulo 23 del Decreto 2067 de 1991.
  4. TERCERO. ENVIENSE sendas copias del presente fallo al Director de COLDEPORTES, La Directora del Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar, a los Consejeros Presidenciales para los derechos humanos, la juventud, la familia y la mujer, y el desarrollo de la Constitucion, asi como al Despacho de la Primera Dama de la Nacion.
  5. CUARTO. ORDENAR que por Secretaria se comunique esta providencia al Juzgado
  6. Primero. Civil del Circuito de Buga en la forma y para los efectos previstos en el articulo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
  7. Notifiquese,
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.