JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)November 3, 1992

T-578 de 1992

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

Reporting justice Alejandro Martínez Caballero

✓Claimant Carlos Rojas

✓
Topic · hard data
Servicios Publicos Domiciliarios. Derecho A La Salubridad Publica. Derecho Al Servicio De Alcantarillado. 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.

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. NO TUTELAR los derechos invocados en el proceso de la referencia.
  2. SEGUNDO. REVOCAR el fallo proferido por el Juzgado
  3. Segundo. Penal del Circuito de Fusagasuga (Cundinamarca), por las razones expuestas en esta Sentencia.
  4. TERCERO. A traves de la Secretaria General de la Corte Constitucional, ENVIAR copia de esta Sentencia a la Gobernacion de Cundinamarca, al Departamento Administrativo de Nacional -Division de Servicios Publicos-, a la Oficina de Planeacion y a la Division de Accion Comunal de la Alcaldia Municipal de Fusagasuga, a la Division de Saneamiento Basico del Fondo de Acueductos y Alcantarillados del Departamento de Cundinamarca, al Acueducto Regional de Veredas del Norte de Fusagasuga -ACUAVENORTE-, a la Junta del Acueducto de Fusagasuga, a la Sociedad Urbanizadora "Brisas del Bosque Ltda".
  5. CUARTO. A traves de la Secretaria General ENVIAR copia de esta Sentencia al Juzgado
  6. Primero. Penal Municipal y al Juzgado
  7. Segundo. Penal del Circuito de Fusagasuga y al Defensor del Pueblo.
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.