JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)September 9, 2004

T-870 de 2004

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

Reporting justice Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra

✓Claimant Gilberto Gonzalez Garcia Y Otro Vs. Fondo Territorial De Pensiones Publicas Del Tolima

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Igualdad Y Al Minimo Vital De Pensionados A Quienes El Fondo No Les Actualiza Las Mesadas Pensionales. Solicitan Se Ordene Al Fondo Efectuar Los Movimiento Presupuestales Y De Tesoreria Para El Pago Retroactivo De Los Ajustes. Improcedencia D
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.

Derecho A La Igualdad
  • Trato diferente debe probarse
  • Distinción injustificada para reajuste pensional
Acción De Tutela
  • Improcedencia pago del retroactivo pensional
2 topics · 3 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. CONFIRMAR la sentencia del Tribunal Superior de Distrito Judicial de Ibagué, Sala Penal, del 27 de abril de 2004, y, en consecuencia, NEGAR la tutela a los derechos invocados por el señor Gilberto González García.
  2. SEGUNDO. REVOCAR la sentencia del Tribunal Superior de Distrito Judicial de Ibagué, Sala Penal, del 14 de abril de 2004, y, en consecuencia, NEGAR la tutela a los derechos invocados por el señor Fernibar Canizalez Bonilla.
  3. TERCERO. Para los efectos del artículo 36 del decreto 2591 de 1991, los juzgados de origen harán las notificaciones y tomará las medidas conducentes para el cumplimiento de esta sentencia.
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.