JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)July 18, 2002

T-551 de 2002

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

Reporting justice Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa

✓Claimant Karla Yelissa Renteria Montaño Vs. Normal Superior Maria Auxiliadora Cucuta

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Educacion De Menor De Edad En Estado De Embarazo. Solicitud Reintegro. Programa De Educacion A Distancia. Capacidad De Decision. 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 Educacion De Mujer Embarazada
  • Protección ante centros educativos con determinada visión ética o religiosa
  • Vulneración por sometimiento a tratamientos educativos especiales
Reglamento Educativo
  • No puede tipificar como falta el embarazo
2 topics · 3 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 adoptado por el Juzgado
  2. Séptimo. Civil Municipal de Cúcuta dentro de la acción de tutela instaurada por Karla Yelissa Rentería Montaño contra la Normal Superior María Auxiliadora.
  3. Segundo. Tutelar el derecho a la educación de la menor Karla Yelissa Rentería Montaño y, para el efecto, ordenar a la Normal Superior María Auxiliadora que, siempre y cuando cumpla con los requisitos legales, respete y acceda a dar cumplimiento a la decisión libre que tome la actora para continuar con su proceso de formación en los términos que estime más convenientes.
  4. Tercero. Librar, por medio de la Secretaría General, las comunicaciones previstas en el artículo 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.