Intervention of the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of the Universidad de Ibagué in the complaint of unconstitutionality against article 55 of the Act 1819, 2016 (Structural Tax Reform). Judgment C-266/19
Article Sidebar
Article Details
Authors keep the copyright and accept the publication of the contents in the journal Dos mil tres mil under the license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International. When authors submit their manuscript, it is assumed that they know and accept the terms of open access and the license used, that they allow publication in this journal and the disclosure of the work.
Authors are allowed to re-use published works, ie post-print may be archived for non-publication purposes Commercial, including their deposit in institutional repositories, thematic or personal web pages. Reproduction in other print or electronic media must include an acknowledgement of the authorship of the work and its initial publication in the Journal.
Downloads
Altmetrics
Main Article Content
Abstract
Complaints of unconstitutionality are part of the democratic exercise through which the citizen goes to the constitutional jurisdiction, in search of proposing by the Court the analysis of a norm that is accused of contradicting the Constitution.
The universities of the country are invited to participate in the initial process pursuant to the complaint, with the purpose of providing their legal interpretation between the subject of the complaint and the Political Constitution. This exercise prior to the final decision of the Constitutional Court has become a valuable space for the expression of the academic voice in the practical context of a judicial decision.
The reader will find below, the concept projected by Professor Carlos Forero and presented by Luis Fernando Sánchez Huertas, dean of the Faculty of Law and Political Science, representing this academic unit in the process of complaint of unconstitutionality regarding the norm provided in Article 55 of the Act 1819, 2016. This legal controversy was resolved through Judgment C-266/19 which can be consulted here.