JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)October 28, 1997

T-543 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 Bernarda Rojas Rua

✓
Topic · hard data
Der. A La Educacion. Der. De Peticion. Impedimento De Ingreso A Clases En Universidad. 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 Educación
  • Factor de desarrollo humano
  • Función del Estado
  • Protección debido al no pago de matrícula
  • Fundamental
Medio De Defensa Judicial
  • Cobro pago de matrícula de estudiantes
3 topics · 6 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 (6 points)
  1. Primero. REVOCAR el fallo proferido por el Juzgado
  2. Primero. Penal del Circuito de Yarumal, y en su lugar CONFIRMAR el fallo proferido en primera instancia por el Juzgado
  3. Primero. Penal Municipal de Yarumal, en lo concerniente a los numerales primero, tercero, cuarto, y
  4. quinto. de la parte resolutiva de dicho fallo.
  5. Segundo. TUTELAR a su vez el derecho fundamental de peticion, razon por la cual se ordenara a la Asistente Tecnica Subregional Norte, Oficina de descentralizacion Educativa de la Secretaria de Educacion Departamental de Antioquia, proceda a dar respuesta a la peticion ante ella elevada el dia 11 de julio de 1996, dentro de las cuarenta y ocho (48) horas siguientes a la notificacion de este fallo..
  6. 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.