JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)September 21, 2009

T-659 de 2009

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

Reporting justice Mauricio González Cuervo

✓Claimant Guillermo Hernan Zapata Olaya·Respondent Instituto De Seguro Social

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.

Accion De Tutela Para Reclamar Pension De Invalidez
  • Improcedencia por cuanto no se cumplen las condiciones señaladas por la jurisprudencia para que el amparo sea procedente
Pension De Invalidez
  • Condiciones para acceder a ella
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Seguridad social, mínimo vital.

El actor solicita el reconocimiento de la pensión de invalidez, la cual fue negada debido a que durante los tres años anteriores a la fecha de estructuración de invalidez no cotizo las cincuenta semanas exigidas por la ley.

La Sala encuentra que no se agotaron los recursos en la vía gubernativa como requisito para poder acudir al amparo constitucional.

Niega.

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
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.

  1. Primero. CONFIRMAR la Sentencia del 24 de abril de 2009, proferida por el Tribunal Superior de Medellin, Sala Laboral, por los motivos expuestos en esta sentencia.
  2. Segundo. LIBRESE por Secretaria General la comunicacion de que trata el articulo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991, para los efectos alli contemplados.
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.