JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)July 4, 2001

T-692 de 2001

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

Reporting justice Jaime Araujo Rentería

✓Claimant Pedro Emilio Gomez Vs. Ministerio De Salud Y Otros

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Vida Igualdad Y Pago Oportuno De Mesadas Pensionales. Procedencia Excepcional De La Tutela Por Afectacion Al Minimo Vital. 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.

Empleador
  • Situación económica o presupuestal no es óbice para desconocer pago de mesadas pensionales
Acción De Tutela
  • Procedencia excepcional pago de mesadas pensionales
Derecho Al Minimo Vital
  • Prueba de la amenaza
4 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 sentencia del 5 de enero de 2001 proferida por el Juzgado 83 Penal Municipal de Bogota, por la cual se nego la proteccion suplicada dentro de la accion de tutela instaurada por el senor Pedro Emilio Gomez. En su lugar se tutelan los derechos invocados por el peticionario.
  2. SEGUNDO. Ordenar al Hospital San Juan de Dios pagarle al senor Pedro Emilio Gomez el valor de las mesadas adeudadas, dentro de los diez dias siguientes a la notificacion de esta providencia. Advirtiendole a la entidad que en adelante debera continuar pagandole al actor las mesadas de manera oportuna e ininterrumpida.
  3. TERCERO. Librese por Secretaria las comunicaciones 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.