JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)October 14, 1997

T-515 de 1997

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

Reporting justice Hernando Herrera Vergara

✓Claimant Gildardo Marin Carvajal

✓
Topic · hard data
Der. De Peticion. Reconocimiento Y Pago De Pension De Invalidez. I.S.S. 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 De Peticion
  • Respuesta oportuna y efectiva
2 topics · 2 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 la providencia del 30 de mayo de 1997, proferida por el Juzgado
  2. Tercero. Penal Municipal de Medellin, respectivamente, mediante la cual se denego el amparo del derecho de peticion invocado como violado por el Gildardo Marin Carvajal.
  3. Segundo. TUTELAR el derecho fundamental de peticion del senor Gildardo Marin Carvajal. En consecuencia, ordenase a la Junta Calificadora de Invalidez de Antioquia, que teniendo en cuenta que el dia catorce de mayo del presente ano, ya le fue practicado el examen fisico al senor Marin Carvajal (folio 18), proceda, si aun no lo ha hecho, a expedir el dictamen medico que le corresponde, en el termino de cuarenta y ocho (48) horas, contadas a partir de la notificacion de esta sentencia. A su vez, el I.S.S., dispondra de cuarenta ocho (48) horas, para que, recibido el dictamen de la Junta Calificadora de Invalidez, proceda a dar respuesta a la peticion del senor Gildardo Marin Carvajal, si dicha respuesta aun no ha sido dada.
  4. Tercero. SURTASE el tramite previsto 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.