JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)November 19, 2009

T-829 de 2009

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

Reporting justice Juan Carlos Henao Pérez

✓Claimant Fredy Bravo Molina·Respondent Cuerpo De Bomberos Voluntarios De Cali

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.

Acción De Tutela
  • Procedencia excepcional pago de acreencias laborales
  • Carencia actual de objeto por hecho superado
1 topic · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Mínimo vital.

El peticionario es miembro sindicalizado del Cuerpo de Bomberos accionado, solicita un reajuste salarial ya que desde los años 2007, 2008 y 2009 gana menos de un salario mínimo y no ha recibido ningún reajuste salarial a diferencia de sus compañeros no sindicalizados.

La Sala observa que en septiembre de 2009, a través de convención colectiva se puso fin al conflicto de las partes, se nivelaron los salarios y las demás prestaciones laborales de los trabajadores sindicalizados, por lo tanto se declara carencia actual de objeto.

Declara improcedente.

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. DECLARAR IMPROCEDENTE, por carencia actual de objeto la acción de tutela y, en consecuencia, CONFIRMAR el fallo proferido por el Juez
  2. Séptimo. Penal Municipal con Funciones de Conocimiento de Cali el dos (2) de abril de dos mil nueve (2009)
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.