JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)May 14, 2001

T-498 de 2001

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

Reporting justice Alvaro Tafur Galvis

✓Claimant Alfredo Marquez Y Otra Vs. La Nacion Ministerio De Hacienda Y Credito Publico Y Otro

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Igualdad Dignidad Humana Y Remuneracion Movil Y Vital. Trato Desigual Al Aplicarse El Decreto 182 De 2000. Mediante El Cual Se Autoriza El Incremento Salarial Solo Hasta Dos Salarios Minimos Mensuales. 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.

Accion De Tutela Transitoria
  • Improcedencia incremento salarial para servidores públicos
Gobierno
  • Formulación anual del presupuesto y ley de apropiaciones
Juez Constitucional
  • Improcedencia para sustituir a las autoridades en las competencias asignadas por la Constitución Política
Juez De Tutela
  • Imposibilidad de modificar presupuesto para incremento salarial de servidores públicos
5 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.

  1. Primero. CONFIRMAR las sentencias proferidas por los Juzgados Quince de Familia y el Veintinueve Civil del Circuito de Bogota en las acciones de tutela interpuestas por Alfredo Marquez y Ana Lucia Mancera Lara contra la Nacion, Ministerio de Hacienda y Credito Publico, y el Distrito Capital de Bogota, con base con base en las consideraciones aqui expuestas
  2. Segundo. Por Secretaria, librese las comunicaciones previstas 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.