JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)November 26, 1997

T-611 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 Maria Yemila Roncancio Rios

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Vida Igualdad Y Seguridad Social. Revocatoria De Acto Administrativo. Suspension De Pago De Mesadas Pensionales. 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.

Error De La Administracion
  • Acto de reconocimiento de pensión
Revocacion Directa De Acto Administrativo Particular Y Concreto
  • Autorización previa de particular
  • Casos en que procede sin la autorización previa del particular
3 topics · 4 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 (3 points)
  1. Primero. REVOCAR la decision proferida por el Juzgado Dieciocho (18) Civil del Circuito de Santafe de Bogota D.C., el 9 de julio de 1997. En su lugar TUTELAR los derechos fundamentales a la vida, igualdad y seguridad social de la senora Maria Yemila Roncancio Rios.
  2. Segundo. ORDENAR al Instituto de Seguros Sociales, para que en el termino de cuarenta y ocho (48) horas contadas a partir de la notificacion de la presente decision, cancele todas las mesadas pendiente por pagara a la senora Roncancio Rios, y siga cancelando las mismas, hasta tanto hasta tanto la jurisdiccion competente decida la controversia en relacion con el derecho al pago de las mismas.
  3. 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.