Through Which The "convention On The Service Of Documents Abroad Of Judicial And Extrajudicial Documents In Civil Or Commercial Matters" Approved, Done At The Hague On November 15, 1965

Original Language Title: Por medio de la cual se aprueba la "Convencion sobre la notificacion o traslado en el extranjero de documentos judiciales o extrajudiciales en materia civil o comercial", hecha en La Haya el 15 de noviembre de 1965

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.

1073 OF 2006

(July 31)

Official Journal No. 46,700 of July 25, 2007

CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

By means of which the convention on the notification or transfer abroad of judicial or extrajudicial documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, made in The Hague on November 15, 1965, is approved.

Vigency Notes Summary

THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

Having regard to the text of "The Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" Hecha at The Hague on November 15, 1965, which reads:

(To be transferred: photocopy of the full text of the mentioned International Instruments is attached).

Official translation number 068-W of a document written in English and French.

CONVENTION ON THE SERVICE ABROAD OF JUDICIAL OR EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS

(done November 15, 1965)

States Parties to this Convention

Wishing to create the necessary means for judicial and extrajudicial documents to be served abroad to be known to their recipients in a timely manner.

Wishing to improve judicial assistance in this regard, simplifying and accelerating the procedure.

They have resolved to conclude a Convention for such purposes and have agreed to the following provisions:

Article 1o. This Convention applies in civil or commercial matters to all cases in which a judicial or extrajudicial document must be sent abroad for notification or transfer.

The Convention will not apply when the address of the document recipient is not known.

CHAPTER I.

Judicial documents.

Article 2o. Each Contracting State shall designate a central authority to take over, the function of receiving the requests for notification or transfer from another Contracting State and to process them in accordance with Articles 3 to 6.

Each state will organize the central authority according to its own law.

Article 3o. The authority or the judicial or state official, competent in accordance with the laws, of the State of origin shall direct to the central authority of the requested State a request in accordance with the model annexed to this Convention, without the necessary legalisation of documents or other similar formality.

The request must be accompanied by the court document or its copy, all in two copies.

Article 4o. If the central authority considers that the request does not comply with the provisions of the Convention, it shall immediately inform the applicant stating its objections against the request.

Article 5o. The central authority of the requested State shall notify or move the document or order its notification or transfer through a competent authority either:

(a) In accordance with the forms established by the law of the State required for the service of documents granted in the country and intended for persons who are on their territory;

b) According to the specific procedure requested by the applicant, provided that it is not incompatible with the law of the requested State.

Without prejudice to the provisions of the first subparagraph, the document may always be delivered to the recipient who voluntarily accepts it.

If the document is to be notified or moved in accordance with the first paragraph, the central authority may request that the document be written or translated into the language or one of the official languages of the country.

The part of the request containing the essential elements of the document, in accordance with the model annexed to this Convention, shall be forwarded to the addressee.

Article 6o. The central authority of the requested State or any authority designated for that purpose shall issue a certificate in accordance with the model annexed to this Convention.

The certification will affirm the fulfillment of the petition; it will include the form, the place and the date of the fulfillment, as well as the person to whom the document has been delivered. If the document has not been notified or moved, the certification shall specify the reasons which have prevented compliance with the request.

The applicant may request that certification that has not been issued by the central authority or by a judicial authority be validated by one of these authorities.

The certification will be directed directly to the required.

Article 7o. The entries printed in the model annexed to this Convention shall be either in French or in English. They may also be written in the official language or in one of the official languages of the State of origin.

The blanks corresponding to such mentions will be filled in the language of the required State, in French, or in English.

Article 8o. Each Contracting State has the right to take directly, through its diplomatic or consular agents, the notifications or transfers of judicial documents to persons who are abroad without measures coercive.

Any State may declare that it opposes the use of this power within its territory, unless the document is to be notified or transferred to a national of the same State of origin.

Article 9o. Each Contracting State also has the power to use the consular post to forward, for the purposes of notification or transfer, the judicial documents to the authorities of another Contracting State designated by it for such purpose.

If exceptional circumstances so require, each Contracting State has the power to use the diplomatic route for such purposes.

Article 10. Provided that the State of destination does not object to this, this Convention should not interfere with:

(a) The right to refer directly by postal means, court documents to persons who are abroad;

(b) The power, in respect of judicial officers, agents or other competent persons of the State of origin, to proceed to the notifications or transfers of judicial documents directly through judicial officials or other officials competent of the State of destination;

(c) The power, in respect of any person interested in a judicial proceeding, to proceed to the notifications or transfers of judicial documents directly through judicial officials or other competent persons of the State of target.

Article 11. This Convention does not preclude the Contracting States from agreeing to admit, for the purposes of the notification or transfer of judicial documents, other channels of reference other than those provided for in the preceding Articles, and in particular the direct communication between their respective authorities.

Article 12. Notifications or transfers of court documents from a Contracting State may not give rise to the payment or reimbursement of taxes and costs incurred by the services of the requested State.

The applicant is required to pay or reimburse expenses incurred by:

(a) The intervention of a judicial officer or a competent person under the law of the State of destination;

b) Using a specific shape.

Article 13. Compliance with a request for notification or transfer in accordance with the provisions of this Convention may be rejected only if the requested State considers that such compliance, by its nature, affects its sovereignty or its security.

Compliance may not be denied for the sole reason that the requested State claims its exclusive jurisdiction for the proceedings in question or that its domestic law does not admit the action referred to in the petition.

In case of rejection of the request, the central authority shall immediately inform the applicant and indicate the reasons.

Article 14. The difficulties arising from the referral, for the purposes of notification or transfer of court documents, shall be settled by diplomatic means.

Article 15. Where a statement of application or an equivalent document has been sent abroad for the purposes of notification or transfer, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, and the defendant does not appear, the Judge shall wait for the time required to offer statement until it is established that:

(a) The document has been notified or has been transferred in accordance with the forms prescribed by the law of the State addressed for the notification or transfer of the documents granted in this country and which are intended for the people who are in their territory, or,

(b) The document has actually been delivered to the defendant or at his residence in accordance with other procedures provided for in this Convention, and which, in any of these cases, is a notification, transfer or delivery, appropriate time for the defendant to be able to defend himself.

Each Contracting State has the power to declare that its judges, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph, may propose a judgment even if no communication has been received which certifies either the notification or the transfer, either of the delivery, if the following conditions are met:

(a) That the document has been issued in any of the ways provided for in this Convention;

(b) After the date of dispatch of the document, a period shall be considered by the Judge in each case individually and shall not be less than six months;

(c) However, the appropriate measures before the competent authorities of the requested State have failed to obtain any certification.

This article does not prevent the Judge from ordering any interim or precautionary measure in case of urgency.

Article 16. Where a statement of claim or an equivalent document has been sent abroad for the purpose of service, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, and a decision has been issued against the defendant who did not The Court of Justice shall have the power to exempt the defendant from the precluding resulting from the expiry of the time limits for the appeal, if the following conditions are met:

(a) The defendant, without any fault on his part, was not aware in time of such a document to defend himself or the decision to appeal;

b) The defendant's allegations, prima facie, seem substantiated.

The demand for the exemption from the precluding will only be admissible if it is formulated within a reasonable period of time from the time the defendant became aware of the decision.

Each Contracting State shall have the power to declare that such a claim shall not be admissible if it is formulated after the expiry of a period of time to be specified in its declaration, provided that the time limit is not less than one year, from the date of the decision.

This article shall not apply to decisions regarding the status or capacity of persons.

CHAPTER II.

Extra-judicial documents.

Article 17. Extrajudicial documents emanating from authorities or judicial officials of a Contracting State may be referred for the purposes of notification or transfer in another Contracting State in accordance with the procedures and conditions laid down by this Regulation. Convention.

CHAPTER III.

General provisions.

Article 18. Each Contracting State may designate, in addition to the central authority, other authorities, determining the extent of its powers.

However, the applicant will always have the right to directly address the central authority.

Federal States will have the power to designate several central authorities.

Article 19. This Convention does not preclude the internal law of a Contracting State from permitting other forms of remission not provided for in the preceding Articles for the purposes of notification or transfer of documents originating from abroad within its territory. territory.

Article 20. This Convention does not preclude the adoption of agreements between the Contracting States in order to avoid:

(a) The second paragraph of Article 3, as regards the double-copy requirement for the documents referred to;

(b) The third paragraph of Article 5 (o) and Article 7o, as regards the use of languages;

(c) Article 5o, fourth paragraph;

(d) The second paragraph of Article 12.

Article 21. Each Contracting State shall notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands either at the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification or accession, or at a later date:

(a) The designation of the authorities provided for in Articles 2 and 18;

(b) The designation of the competent authority to issue the certification referred to in Article 6o;

(c) The designation of the competent authority to receive the documents submitted by consular means in accordance with Article 9o.

Given the case and under the same conditions, you will notify:

(a) Your opposition to the use of the means of referral provided for in Articles 8 or 10;

(b) The declarations provided for in the second paragraph of Article 15 and the third paragraph of Article 16;

c) Any modification of the designations, opposition and statements mentioned above.

Article 22. This Convention shall replace, in relations between the States which have ratified it, Articles 1 to 7 of the Conventions relating to civil proceedings, signed at The Hague on 17 July 1905 and 1 March 1954 respectively, in so far as those States are parties to one or the other of those Conventions.

Article 23. This Convention does not preclude the application of Article 23 of the Convention on Civil Procedure signed at The Hague on 17 July 1905, or Article 24 of the Convention signed in The Hague on 1 March 1954.

However, these articles shall not be applicable but when the use of communication systems identical to those provided for by such Conventions.

Article 24. The supplementary agreements to the Convention of 1905 and 1954, concluded by the Contracting States, shall be considered as equally applicable to this Convention, unless the States concerned agree to something different.

Article 25. Without prejudice to the application of Articles 22 and 24, this Convention shall not deroga from the Conventions in which the Contracting States are or may become parties and which contain provisions on matters governed by this Convention. Convention.

Article 26. This Convention shall be open to the signature of the States represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

The Convention will be ratified and the instruments of ratification will be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

Article 27. This Convention shall enter into force on the sixtieth day after the deposit of the third instrument of ratification provided for in the second paragraph of Article 26.

The Convention will enter into force, for each signatory State that will ratify it sixty days after the deposit of its instrument of ratification.

Article 28. Any State not represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law may accede to this Convention after its entry into force, in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27. The instrument of accession shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

The Convention shall enter into force for such a State only if there is no opposition from any State which has ratified the Convention prior to that deposit, notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands within six months. from the date on which the said Ministry has notified the said accession.

If there is no opposition, the Convention shall enter into force for the acceding State on the first day of the month following the expiration of the last of the periods referred to in the preceding paragraph.

Article 29. Any State, at the time of signature, ratification or accession, may declare that this Convention shall extend to all the territories it represents at the international level or to one or more of those territories. Such a declaration shall take effect upon the entry into force of the Convention for that State.

Subsequently, any extension of this nature will be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

The Convention shall enter into force for the territories mentioned in that extension within sixty days of the notification referred to in the preceding paragraph.

Article 30. This Convention shall be valid for a period of five years from the date of its entry into force in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27, including for States which have ratified it or acceded to it. later.

Except denunciation of the Convention will be tacitly renewed every five years.

Any complaint shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands at least six months before the expiry of the five-year period.

The complaint may be limited to some of the territories to which the Convention applies.

The complaint will take effect only with respect to the State that has notified it. The Convention shall remain in force for the other Contracting States.

Article 31. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands shall notify the States referred to in Article 26 and the States which have acceded in accordance with the provisions of Article 28:

(a) The signatures and ratifications provided for in Article 26;

(b) The date on which this Convention enters into force in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27;

(c) The accessions provided for in Article 28 and the date on which they take effect;

(d) The extensions provided for in Article 29 and the date on which they take effect;

(e) The designations, oppositions and declarations referred to in Article 21;

(f) The denunciations provided for in the third paragraph of Article 30.

In faith of which, the undersigned, duly authorized, have signed this Convention.

Made in The Hague, on 15 November 1965, in French and English, both texts being equally authentic, in a single copy, to be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Netherlands and of which a copy shall be sent by diplomatic means It is authentic to each of the States represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

REQUEST AND CERTIFICATION MODELS-ANNEXES TO THE CONVENTION

(as provided for in Articles 3, 5, 6 and 7)

DOCUMENT ESSENTIALS

REQUEST

FOR PURPOSES OF FOREIGN SERVICE OR TRANSFER OF A JUDICIAL OR EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENT

Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, signed at The Hague on November 15, 1965.

Identity and Address of the
 Required
Authority Address
target

The undersigned has the honour of referring-in two copies-to the receiving authority the documents listed, asking, in accordance with Article 5 of the abovementioned Convention, to send a copy without delay to the consignee, know:

(identity and address) ...

a) According to the legal forms [article 5o, first paragraph, point (a)] *

(b) According to the following specific formula (Article 5o, first paragraph, point (b)) *

...

c) Where appropriate, by simple delivery to the data subject (Article 5, second paragraph) *

...

Please send or send a copy of the document-and its annexes-to the applicant with the certification that appears on the back.

Enumeration of documents

...

Made in ... the ... of ...

Signature and/or Seal

(Request Dorso)

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned authority has the honor to certify, in accordance with Article 6o of that Convention,

1. That the request was executed *

-the (date) ...

-in (locality, street, number) ...

-in one of the following forms provided for in Article 5o:

a) According to the legal forms [article 5o, first paragraph, point (a)] *

b) according to the following specific form * ...

c) by simple deliver.* (article 5o, acapite 2) *

The documents mentioned in the petition have been delivered to:

(Identity and quality of person) ...

-Relationship links, subordination, or others, with the document recipient ...

2. That the request was not executed because of the following facts *

...

Pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 2, of that Convention, the applicant is requested to pay or reimburse the expenses for which details are provided in the statement attached. *

Attachments

Documents forwarded:

...

Where appropriate, the supporting documents of the execution

...

Made in ... the ... of ...

Signature and/or Seal

DOCUMENT ESSENTIALS

Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters signed at The Hague on November 15, 1965.

(article 5o, fourth paragraph)

Name and address of the requesting authority:

...

Identity of the Parties * ...

JUDICIAL DOCUMENT **

Nature and document object:

...

Nature and subject matter of the procedure and, where appropriate, the amount of the dispute:

...

Date and place to verify the appearance: **

...

Judicial authority that passed the resolution: **

...

Resolution date: * ...

Indication of the time-frames listed in the document: **

...

OUT-OF-COURT DOCUMENT * *

Nature and document object:

...

Indication of the time-frames listed in the document: **

...

This is a faithful and complete copy of the Spanish translation of the Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, made in The Hague, on 15 November. thousand nine hundred and sixty-five.

IS FAITHFUL AND COMPLETE TRANSLATION

TRANSLATOR JORGE HUMBERTO OJEDA

BOGOTA, D. C., JULY 31, 2003

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

REPUBLIC OF THE REPUBLIC

BOGOTÁ, D. C., SEPTEMBER 3, 2003

APPROVED. SUBMIT TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE HONORABLE NATIONAL CONGRESS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL EFFECTS (FDO.) ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

THE FOREIGN MINISTER

(FDO.) CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON

DECRETA:

Article 1o. Approve the "Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters", made in The Hague on November 15, 1965.

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7a of 1944, the "Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters", made in The Hague on 15 November 1965, which is approved by Article 1 of this Law, shall be binding on the country from the date on which the international link with respect to it is perfected.

Article 3o. This Law governs from the date of its publication.

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., a los

Presented to the honorable Congress of the Republic by the Minister of the Interior and Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The Minister of the Interior and Justice,

SABAS EDUARDO PRETELT DE LA VEGA

The Foreign Minister,

CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

REPUBLIC OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., 3 September 2003

Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for Constitutional Effects

(Fdo.) ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Minister of Foreign Affairs (Fdo.)

CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON

DECRETA:

Article 1o. Approve the "Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" made in the Hague on November 15, 1965.

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7a of 1944, the "Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" made in The Hague on 15 November 1965, Article 1o of this Law shall be adopted, shall bind the country from the date on which the international link with respect to it is perfected.

Article 3o. This Law governs from the date of its publication.

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

DILIAN FRANCSCA TORO TORRES

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

EMILIO RAMON OTERO DAJUD

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

ALFREDO APE NECK BAUTE

The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,

ANGELINO LIZANO RIVERA

LAW 1073 DE 2006

(July 31)

By means of which the convention on the notification or transfer abroad of judicial or extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters made in the Hague on November 15, 1965 is approved.

In compliance with the provisions of Auto 053 of 28 February 2007, Expediente LAT-293, of the Plena Chamber of the Constitutional Court, which in its pertinent part noted:

" (...)

On the latter particular, it should be noted that the presidential sanction, as it relates to the same approving act subject to analysis, will not contract the change in the identification of the law. In this sense, the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, at the time of exercising the jurisdiction provided for in Article 8 of Decree 2719 of 2000, will retain the number of Law 1073 of July 31, 2006. This is because, as this corporation has maintained, the underhealing of a vice in the legislative process by the Congress does not contract any modification in relation to the nominal identification of the bill and the approval law. ", on the date will again be sanctioned the Bill of Law number 90 of 2004 Senado-236 of 2005 Chamber" by means of which the convention on the notification or transfer abroad of judicial or extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters is approved" Done at The Hague on 15 November 1965, as a result Law 1073 is sanctioned here on 31 July 2006, retaining its initial numbering and dates.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Communicate and comply.

Execute, upon revision of the Constitutional Court, pursuant to article 241-10 of the Political Constitution.

Dada in Bogotá, D. C., at 25 July 2007.

ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Foreign Minister,

FERNANDO ARAUJO PERDOMO.

Bogotá, D. C., July 17, 2007

Doctor

ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

President of the Republic

City

Mr. President:

Accompanied by all your antecedents and in double copy, carefully I allow to send to you for your executive sanction the Bill of Law number 90 of 2004 Senate-236 of 2005 Chamber "by means of which the the convention on the service abroad of judicial or extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters " made in The Hague on 15 November 1965.

This Bill was sanctioned on July 31, 2006 as Law 1073 of 2006, was subsequently referred to the Constitutional Court in compliance with the article 241-10 of the Political Constitution.

The Constitutional Court by Auto A-53 of February 28, 2007, asked Congress to correct a procedural vice and once the procedure was completed, it was referred back to the Court for a final ruling. By Auto of July 10, 2007 it is returned to the Congress to be sent to the National Government to be sanctioned in the terms of the Auto A-53 of February 28, 2007.

Cordially,

EMILIO OTERO DAJUD

Secretary General

Senate of the Republic.

Bogotá, D. C., June 22, 2007

Doctor

RODRIGO ESCOBAR GIL

President

City

Mr. President:

Duly completed the procedure requested by the honorable Constitutional Court in Auto A -53 of February 28, 2007, and taking into account article 167 of the Political Constitution, comedidally referred to his Office the file of the Bill of Law number 90 of 2004 Senate-236 of 2005 Chamber " by means of which the convention on the notification or transfer abroad of judicial or extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters "adopted" in the Hague on November 15, 1965, to be approved dictate final failure.

Cordially,

DILIAN FRANCSCA TORO TORRES

President

Honorable Senate of the Republic

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

AUTO

LAT Case-293

Review of the constitutionality of Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, "by means of which the" Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial Documents is approved " Extrajudicial in Civil or Commercial Matter"made in The Hague on November 15, 1965."

Magistrate Judge: Jaime Cordoba Triviño

Bogotá, D. C., ten (10) of July two thousand seven (2007).

The undersigned Magistrate, in exercise of his constitutional and legal powers, and

CONSIDERING:

1. That by communication of 8 August 2006, the Legal Secretary of the Presidency of the Republic referred to this Corporation Law 1073 of 31 July 2006, " by means of which the "Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" was adopted in The Hague on November 15 1965", in order to have the constitutionality review provided for in article 240-10 C.P.

2. That through Auto 053 of February 28, 2007, the Plena Chamber of this Corporation concluded that in the legislative procedure that preceded the passage of Law 1073 of 2006, a vice of procedure of a subsable nature. Consequently, the following is ordered in the resolutive part of the providence:

"First.-By the General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court, return to the House of Representatives Presidency Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, by means of which approves the "Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial or Extra-judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" made in The Hague on November 15, 1965", in order to process the vice-healing of the procedural vice identified in this providence.

Second.- Concede to the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the House of Representatives the term of 30 days, counted from the notification of this order to the Presidency of the itself, to remedy the vice detected in this providence.

Third.-Once the vice referred to in the consideration of this providence has been remedied, the House of Representatives will have until 20 June 2007 to comply with the later stages of the legislative process. Then, the President of the Republic will have the deadline set in the Charter to sanction the bill.

Fourth.-Fulfilled the previous procedure, the President of the Congress will refer to the Court the Law 1073 of 2006, to decide definitively on its exequability. "

3. That through writing in the Presidency of the Court on July 4, 2007, the President of the Senate of the Republic referred to the file of Bill of Law number 90 of 2004 Senate-236 of 2005 House The "Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" was adopted in The Hague on November 15, 1965. In this regard, the communication states that the said consignment was " duly completed the procedure requested by the honourable Constitutional Court in Auto A-53 of 28 February 2007, and taking into account Article 167 (sic) of the Constitution. Policy. "and in order for the Court to" definitive ruling".

4. According to the article 240-10 C.P., it is up to the Constitutional Court to decide definitively on the exilibility of international treaties and the laws that approve them. On the basis of this provision, the number of the third of the Auto A-053 of 2007 ordered that once the vice of procedure was remedied, the President of the Republic would have the time limit set in the Constitution to sanction the bill, in exercise of the competence provided for in Article 165 C.P.

5. The undersigned Magistrate, who analyzed the documentation submitted to the Court, warns that in the present case the requirement for the presidential sanction was pretermised.

RESOLVES:

Return the legislative file corresponding to Bill 90 of 2004 Senate 236 of 2005 House "by means of which the" Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Documents is approved Judicial or Extrajudicial in Civil or Commercial Matters "made in The Hague on November 15, 1965" to the Presidency of the Senate of the Republic, for the purpose of referring it to the National Government, for the purposes of the respective presidential sanction and in the terms provided for in the Auto A-053 of 2007. If this procedure is completed, the other orders provided for in that court decision must be followed.

Communicate and comply,

The Substantiator Magistrate,

JAIME CÓRDOBA TRIVINO

The General Secretariat,

MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA MENDEZ

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

-Full Room-

AUTO 053 OF 2007

Ref.: Expedite LAT-293

Review of the constitutionality of Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, "by means of which the 'Convention on the Notification or Transfer on the Foreign of Judicial Documents' Civil or Commercial Matters ', made in The Hague on November 15, 1965. "

Magistrate Rapporteur: Jaime Cordoba Trivino

Bogotá, D. C., twenty-eight (28) February of two thousand seven (2007).

The Full Court of the Constitutional Court, in exercise of its constitutional and legal powers, in particular those provided for in Article 241, numeral 10, of the Political Constitution, has the next Auto, within the process of revision of Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, " by means of which the ' Convention on the Notification or Transfer in the Foreign of Judicial or extrajudicial documents in Civil or Commercial Matters ' in The Hague on 15 November 1965 ".

I. TEXT OF THE RULE

The law object of analysis, which was published in the Official Journal 46.346 of July 31, 2006, is as follows:

ACT 1073 OF 2006

(July 31)

by means of which the "Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" is approved, made in The Hague on November 15 from 1965.

The Congress of the Republic

Having regard to the text of "The Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" made in The Hague on 15 November 1965, which reads:

(To be transcribed: photocopy of the full text of the International Instrument mentioned).

2004 BILL NUMBER 90

By means of which the "Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" is approved, made in The Hague on November 15 from 1965.

The Congress of the Republic

Having regard to the text of the "Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters", made in The Hague on November 15, 1965.

(To be transcribed: photocopy of the full text of the International Instrument mentioned).

OFFICIAL TRANSLATION NUMBER 068-W of a document written in English and French

CONVENTION ON THE SERVICE ABROAD OF JUDICIAL OR EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS, MADE ON 15 NOVEMBER 1965

States Parties to this Convention,

Wishing to create the necessary means for judicial and extrajudicial documents to be served abroad to be known to their recipients in a timely manner.

Wishing to improve judicial assistance in this regard, simplifying and accelerating the procedure.

They have resolved to conclude a Convention for such purposes and have agreed to the following provisions:

Item 1o

This Convention applies, in civil or commercial matters, to all cases in which a judicial or extrajudicial document must be sent abroad for notification or transfer.

The Convention will not apply when the address of the document recipient is not known.

CHAPTER I.

Judicial documents.

Article 2o

Each Contracting State shall designate a central authority to assume the function of receiving requests for notification or transfer from another Contracting State and to process them in accordance with Articles 3 to 6.

Each state will organize the central authority according to its own law.

Article 3o

The authority, or the judicial or state official competent in accordance with the laws, of the State of origin, shall address to the central authority of the requested State a request in accordance with the model annexed to this Convention, without the necessary legalisation of documents or other similar formality.

The request must be accompanied by the court document or its copy, all in two copies.

Article 4o

If the Central Authority considers that the request does not comply with the provisions of the Convention, it shall immediately inform the applicant by stating its objections against the request.

Article 5o

The central authority of the requested State shall notify or move the document or order its notification or transfer through a competent authority either:

(a) In accordance with the forms established by the law of the State required for the service of documents granted in the country and intended for persons who are on their territory;

b) According to the specific procedure requested by the applicant, provided that it is not incompatible with the law of the requested State.

Without prejudice to the provisions of the first subparagraph, the document may always be delivered to the recipient who voluntarily accepts it.

If the document is to be notified or moved in accordance with the first paragraph, the central authority may request that the document be written or translated into the language or one of the official languages of the country.

The part of the request containing the essential elements of the document in accordance with the model annexed to this Convention shall be forwarded to the addressee.

Article 6o

The central authority of the requested State or any authority designated for that purpose shall issue a certificate in accordance with the model annexed to this Convention.

The certification will affirm the fulfillment of the petition; it will include the form, the place and the date of the fulfillment, as well as the person to whom the document has been delivered. If the document has not been notified or moved, the certification shall specify the reasons which have prevented compliance with the request.

The requirement may require certification that has not been issued by the central authority or by a judicial authority to be validated by one of these authorities.

The certification will be directed directly to the required.

Article 7o

The entries printed in the model annexed to this Convention shall be mandatory in French or English. They may also be written in the official language or in one of the official languages of the State of origin.

The blanks corresponding to such mentions will be filled in the language of the required State, in French, or in English.

Article 8o

Each Contracting State has the right to take directly through its diplomatic or consular agents, to the notifications or transfers of judicial documents to persons who are abroad, without measures coercive.

Any State may declare that it opposes the use of this power within its territory, unless the document is to be notified or transferred to a national of the same State of origin.

Article 9o

Each Contracting State also has the power to use the consular post to forward, for the purposes of notification or transfer, the judicial documents to the authorities of another Contracting State designated by this State for such purpose.

If exceptional circumstances so require, each Contracting State has the power to use the diplomatic route for such purposes.

Article 10

On condition that the State of destination does not declare an objection to it, this Convention should not interfere with:

(a) The right to refer the court documents directly to persons who are abroad;

(b) The power, in respect of judicial officers, agents or other competent persons of the State of origin, to proceed to the notifications or transfers of judicial documents directly through judicial officials or other officials competent of the State of destination;

(c) The power, in respect of any person interested in a judicial proceeding, to proceed to the notifications or transfers of judicial documents directly through judicial officials or other competent persons of the State of target.

Article 11

This Convention does not preclude Contracting States from agreeing to admit, for the purposes of the notification or transfer of court documents, other channels of reference other than those provided for in the preceding Articles, and in particular the direct communication between their respective authorities.

Article 12

Notifications or transfers of court documents from a Contracting State may not result in the payment or reimbursement of taxes and costs incurred by the services of the requested State.

The requirement is required to pay or reimburse expenses incurred by:

(a) The intervention of a judicial officer or a competent person under the law of the State of destination;

b) Using a specific shape.

Article 13

Compliance with a request for notification or transfer in accordance with the provisions of this Convention may be rejected only if the requested State judges that such compliance, by its nature, affects its sovereignty or its security.

Compliance may not be denied for the sole reason that the requested State claims its exclusive jurisdiction for the proceedings in question or that its domestic law does not admit the action referred to in the petition.

In case of rejection of the request, the central authority shall immediately inform the applicant and indicate the reasons.

Article 14

The difficulties arising from the referral, for the purposes of notification or transfer of court documents, shall be resolved by diplomatic means.

Article 15

Where a statement of claim or an equivalent document has been sent abroad for the purposes of notification or transfer, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and the defendant does not appear, the judge shall wait for the time required to offer statement until it is established that:

(a) The document has been notified or has been transferred in accordance with the forms prescribed by the law of the State addressed for the notification or transfer of the documents granted in this country and which are intended for the persons who are in their territory, or;

(b) The document has actually been delivered to the defendant or at his residence in accordance with other procedures provided for in this Convention, and which, in any of these cases, is a notification, transfer or delivery, appropriate time for the defendant to be able to defend himself.

Each Contracting State has the power to declare that its judges, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph, may propose a judgment even if no communication has been received which certifies either the notification or the transfer, either of the delivery, if the following conditions are met:

(a) That the document has been issued in any of the ways provided for in this Convention;

(b) After the date of dispatch of the document, a time limit shall be considered by the judge in each case individually and shall not be less than six months;

(c) However, the appropriate measures before the competent authorities of the requested State have failed to obtain any certification.

This article does not prevent the judge from ordering any interim or precautionary measure in case of urgency.

Article 16

Where a statement of claim or an equivalent document has been sent abroad for the purpose of service, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, and a decision has been issued against the defendant who did not The Court of Justice shall have the power to exempt the defendant from the precluding resulting from the expiry of the time limits for the appeal, if the following conditions are met:

(a) The defendant, without any fault on his part, was not aware in time of such a document to defend himself or the decision to appeal;

b) The defendant's claims, prima facie, seem substantiated.

The demand for the exemption from the precluding will only be admissible if it is formulated within a reasonable period of time from the time the defendant became aware of the decision.

Each Contracting State shall have the power to declare that such a claim shall not be admissible if it is formulated after the expiry of a period of time to be specified in its declaration, provided that the time limit is not less than one year, from the date of the decision.

This article shall not apply to decisions regarding the status or capacity of persons.

CHAPTER II.

Extra-judicial documents.

Article 17

Extrajudicial documents emanating from authorities or judicial officials of a Contracting State may be referred for the purpose of service or service in another Contracting State in accordance with the arrangements and conditions laid down by the Present Convention.

CHAPTER III.

General provisions.

Article 18

Each Contracting State may designate, in addition to the Central Authority, other authorities, determining the extent of its powers.

However, the requirement will always have the right to directly address the central authority.

Federal States will have the power to designate several central authorities.

Article 19

This Convention does not preclude the internal law of a Contracting State from permitting other forms of remission not provided for in the foregoing Articles, for the purposes of notification or transfer of documents originating from abroad within its territory. territory.

Article 20

This Convention does not preclude the adoption of agreements between Contracting States in order to avoid:

(a) The second paragraph of Article 3, as regards the double-copy requirement for the documents referred to;

(b) The third paragraph of Article 5 and Article 7, as regards the use of languages;

(c) Article 5o, fourth paragraph;

(d) The second paragraph of Article 12.

Article 21

Each Contracting State shall notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands either at the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification or accession or thereafter:

(a) The designation of the authorities provided for in Articles 2 and 18;

(b) The designation of the competent authority to issue the certification referred to in Article 6o;

(c) The designation of the competent authority to receive the documents submitted by consular means in accordance with Article 9o.

Given the case and under the same conditions, you will notify:

(a) Your opposition to the use of the means of referral provided for in Articles 8 or 10;

(b) The declarations provided for in the third paragraph of Article 15 and the third paragraph of Article

;

c) Any modification of the designations, opposition and statements mentioned above.

Article 22

This Convention shall replace, in relations between the States which have ratified it, Articles 1 to 7 of the Convention on Civil Procedure, signed at The Hague on 17 July 1905 and 1 March 1954 respectively, in so far as those States are parties to one or the other of those Conventions.

Article 23

This Convention does not preclude the application of Article 23 of the Convention on Civil Procedure signed at The Hague on 17 July 1905, or Article 24 of the Convention signed in The Hague on 1 March 1954.

However, these articles shall not be applicable but when the use of communication systems identical to those provided for by such Conventions.

Article 24

Supplementary agreements to the Convention of 1905 and 1954, concluded by the Contracting States, shall be considered as equally applicable to this Convention, unless the States concerned agree to something different.

Article 25

Without prejudice to the application of Articles 22 and 24, this Convention shall not repeal the Conventions in which Contracting States are or may become parties and which contain provisions on matters governed by this Convention. Convention.

Article 26

This Convention shall be open to the signature of the States represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

The Convention will be ratified and the instruments of ratification will be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

Article 27

This Convention shall enter into force on the sixtieth day after the deposit of the third instrument of ratification provided for in the second paragraph of Article 26.

The Convention shall enter into force for each signatory State which ratifies it within sixty days of the deposit of its instrument of ratification.

Article 28

Any State not represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law may accede to this Convention after its entry into force, as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 27. The instrument of accession shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

The Convention shall enter into force for such a State only if there is no opposition from any State which has ratified the Convention prior to that deposit, notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands within six months. from the date on which the said Ministry has notified the said accession.

If there is no opposition, the Convention shall enter into force for the acceding State on the first day of the month following the expiration of the last of the periods referred to in the preceding paragraph.

Article 29

Any State, at the time of signature, ratification or accession, may declare that this Convention shall extend to all the territories it represents at the international level or to one or more of those territories. Such a declaration shall take effect upon the entry into force of the Convention for that State.

Subsequently, any extension of this nature will be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

The Convention shall enter into force for the territories mentioned in that extension within sixty days of the notification referred to in the preceding paragraph.

Article 30

This Convention shall be for a period of five years from the date of its entry into force in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27, including for States which have ratified it or acceded to it. later.

Except denunciation, the Convention will be tacitly renewed every five years.

Any complaint shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands at least six months before the expiry of the five-year period.

The complaint may be limited to some of the territories to which the Convention applies. The complaint shall take effect only in respect of the State which has notified it. The Convention shall remain in force for the other Contracting States.

Article 31

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands shall notify the States referred to in Article 26 and the States which have acceded in accordance with the provisions of Article 28:

(a) The signatures and ratifications provided for in Article 26;

(b) The date on which this Convention enters into force in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27;

(c) The accessions provided for in Article 28 and the date on which they take effect;

(d) The extensions provided for in Article 29 and the date on which they take effect;

(e) The designations, oppositions and declarations referred to in Article 21;

(f) The denunciations provided for in the third paragraph of Article 30.

In faith of which, the undersigned, duly authorized, have signed this Convention.

Made in The Hague, on 15 November 1965, in French and English, both texts being equally authentic, in a single copy, to be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Netherlands and of which a copy shall be sent by diplomatic means authentic to each of the States represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

REQUEST AND CERTIFICATION MODELS

ANNEXES TO THE CONVENTION

(Previous in 3o, 5o, 6o, and 7o)

DOCUMENT ESSENTIALS

PETITION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FOREIGN SERVICE OR TRANSFER OF A JUDICIAL OR EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENT

Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, signed at The Hague on November 15, 1965.

Identity and Address of the Requester

Address of the target authority

The undersigned has the honour of referring-in two copies-to the receiving authority the documents listed, begging him, in accordance with Article 5 of the abovementioned Convention, to send a copy without delay to the recipient, know:

Identity and Address) ...

a) According to the legal forms [article 5o, first paragraph, point (a)] *

b) According to the following specific formula (Article 5o, first paragraph, point (b)) * ...

c) Where appropriate, by simple delivery to the data subject (Article 5o, second paragraph) * ...

Please send or send a copy of the document-and its annexes-to the required certificate with the certification that appears on the back.

Enumeration of documents

...

...

...

...

Made in ... the ... of ...

Signature and/or Seal.

(Request Dorso)

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned authority has the honor to certify, in accordance with Article 6o of that Convention,

1. That the request was executed *

-The (date) ...

-In (locality, street, number) ...

-In one of the following forms provided for in Article 5o:

a) According to the legal forms [article 5o, first paragraph, point (a)] *

b) According to the following specific form * ...

c) For simple delivery * (article 5o, acapite 2) * ...

The documents mentioned in the petition have been delivered to:

(Identity and quality of person) ...

-Parentage links, subordination, or others, with the document recipient

...

...

...

2. That the request was not executed because of the following facts *

...

...

...

According to the second paragraph of Article 12 of the said Convention, the required payment or reimbursement of the costs for which details are included in the statement is requested. *

Attachments

...

...

...

Documents forwarded:

...

...

...

Where appropriate, the supporting documents of the execution

...

...

...

Made in ... the ... of ...

Signature and/or Seal.

DOCUMENT ESSENTIALS

Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters signed at The Hague on November 15, 1965.

(Article 5o, fourth paragraph)

Name and address of the requesting authority:

...

...

...

Party Identity: *

...

...

...

JUDICIAL DOCUMENT **

Nature and document object:

...

...

...

Nature and subject matter of the procedure and, where appropriate, the amount of the dispute:

...

...

...

Date and place to verify the appearance: **

...

...

...

Judicial authority that passed the resolution: **

...

...

...

Resolution date: **

Indication of the time-frames listed in the document: **

...

...

...

OUT-OF-COURT DOCUMENT * *

Nature and document object:

...

...

...

Indication of the time-frames listed in the document: **

...

...

...

This is a faithful and complete copy of the Spanish translation of the Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, made in The Hague, on 15 November. thousand nine hundred and sixty-five.

IS FAITHFUL AND COMPLETE TRANSLATION.

TRANSLATOR: JORGE HUMBERTO OJEDA

BOGOTA, D. C., ON JULY 31, 2003.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

REPUBLIC OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., 3 September 2003

Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for the constitutional effects.

(Fdo.) ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Foreign Minister,

(Fdo.) CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON.

DECRETA:

Article 1o. Approve the "Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters", made in The Hague on November 15, 1965.

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 (1) of Law 7ª of 1944, the "Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters", made in The Hague on 15 November 1965, which is approved by Article 1 of this Law, shall be binding on the country from the date on which the international link with respect to it is perfected.

Article 3o. This law governs from the date of its publication.

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., a ...

Presented to the honorable Congress of the Republic by the Minister of the Interior and Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The Minister of the Interior and Justice,

SABAS EDUARDO PRETELT DE LA VEGA.

The Foreign Minister,

CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., 3 September 2003

Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for the constitutional effects.

(Fdo.) ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Foreign Minister,

(Fdo.) CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON.

DECRETA:

ARTICLE 1o. Approve the "Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" made in The Hague on November 15, 1965.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the " Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil Matters Abroad or " in the Hague on 15 November 1965, which is approved by Article 1 of this Law, it shall bind the country from the date on which the international link with respect to it is perfected.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE 3o. This law governs from the date of its publication.

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

BARBERI ' S CLAUDIA BLUM.

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

EMILIO RAMON OTERO DAJUD.

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

JULY E. GALLARDO ARCHBOLD.

The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,

ANGELINO LIZANO RIVERA.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Communicate and comply.

Execute, upon revision of the Constitutional Court, pursuant to article 241-10 of the Political Constitution.

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., at 31 July 2006.

ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Foreign Minister,

CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON.

II. INTERVENTIONS

2.1. Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Citizen José Demetrio Matias Ortiz, as a special proxy for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, intervened in the present process in order to defend the constitutionality of the international instrument and its approval law.

First of all, the Ministry clarified that the Convention subject to analysis was the result of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, an intergovernmental organization whose main objective is the progressive unification of the rules of this branch of law, through the creation of multilateral legal instruments. Given that the Colombian State did not participate in the aforementioned Conference, the subscription of the Convention will be made under the figure of accession, a mechanism that will proceed " once the approval procedures have been completed. legislative and constitutional review; without prejudice to the powers of the executive branch of the public power to do so at any time in accordance with the powers provided for in Article 189.2 of the Political Constitution, for the maximum direction of relations international ".

Secondly, with respect to the procedure of incorporation of the international instrument into domestic law, the Ministry of the intervener states that with " the purpose of initiating the internal constitutional procedures, prior to On 3 September 2003, the President of the Republic ordered the approval of the Congress of the Republic to be considered and approved by the President of the Republic of the Convention ". After the executive approval was given, on 23 August 2004, the National Government, through the Ministries of Interior and Justice and Foreign Affairs, presented to the General Secretariat of the Senate the corresponding bill. As the legislative process was completed, Law 1073 obtained a presidential sanction on July 31, 2006. On the basis of this procedure, the intervener concludes that in the case under examination the requirements contained in article 159-6 C. P., as regards the faculty of the Congress to approve treaties; as well as the conditions set out in article 189-2 regarding the direction by the President of the international policy of the State and the subscription of treated.

In the third term, in the face of the material aspect of the Convention, the Ministry of the intervener states, on the basis of the description of the articles of the treaty, that its contents are subject to the constitutional canons. To support this conclusion, it states that the objective of the instrument is improve judicial assistance by simplifying and speeding up the procedure for the service of judicial documents and documents. Extra-judicial in civil and commercial matters ". In this sense, " establishes the channels through which applications must be formulated and addressed or requests; it grants a prudential term for those who could not be notified in their opportunity regarding a claim or did not exercise the right of defense, so that they request the exoneration of the preclusion; it provides for the costs of the proceedings and the mechanism of dispute resolution ". These purposes, in the Ministry's discretion, develop different constitutional postulates, including respect for national sovereignty, recognition of the principles of international law, due process, access to Administration of Justice and the principles of the administrative function contained in the article 209 Superior.

2.2. Ministry of the Interior and Justice

Citizen Fernando Gomez Mejía, director of legal order at the Ministry of Interior and Justice, submitted a letter of justification for the constitutionality of Law 1073/06. To this end, he described the legislative process of the bill that preceded the analyzed rule and concluded that the procedure had been adjusted to the precepts of the Political Charter.

Regarding the material aspect of the international instrument, the Ministry highlights how the Convention establishes direct channels, through central authorities, for the notification and transfer of judicial and extrajudicial documents, in conditions of clarity, economy and efficiency. In this sense, the accession of Colombia to the treaty is an appropriate mechanism to give prompt and effective response to the requests of the judicial authorities regarding the notification of a judicial providence or the transfer of a document Extra-judicial to another country. Faculties of this nature are harmonious with the aims of the Social State of Law, in particular the effective administration of justice, understood in line with " the needs of the internationalization of the legal relations and globalisation, in order to simplify in judicial and extrajudicial matters such notification or transfer ".

In the same way, the intervener maintains that the provisions of the treaty leave the possibility for the Parties to accept other procedures recognized by practice, by their domestic legislation or by bilateral agreements. From this perspective, the " States retain their power to use the diplomatic route, to send the notifications directly to the addressee, or to go to the forecasts of their domestic legislation. It is then that the authorities opt for the most appropriate route, without restricting their field of action to the possibilities offered by the Convention, and without overrunning the limits that the respective legal order imposes. "

2.3. Notarized and Record Superintendence

The citizen Roberto Burgos Cantor, Head of the Legal Office of the Superintendence of Notaries and Registration, intervenes in the present procedure in order to defend the constitutionality of the norm subject to examination. To this end, it states that in relation to the competencies of the Superintendence, the international instrument would be applicable " in the documents authorized by the notaries. Today the act that would require notification in civil matters and from the perspective of the extra-judicial would be those in which the recognition of extra-marital child by public deed occurs. | | According to the above, a notarial act would have its specific system of notification by the one who exercises the function of notary in the exterior, that is, the Colombian Consul. | | Thus we do not find any constitutional violation as the Convention is careful to preserve the traditional procedures for the notification or transfer of documents abroad. "

III. CONCEPT OF THE NATION ' S ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Attorney General of the Nation, exercising the powers provided for in 242-2 and 278 of the Political Constitution, presented concept within the procedure of the reference, in which it asks the Court to declare the exequability of the Convention, as well as its law of approval.

After describing the formal study of the bill that ended with Law 1073/06, the Fiscal View concludes that this procedure complied with the constitutional and legal requirements, so it does not find (a) repair from the constitutional requirements applicable to the legislative procedure.

Similarly, the Public Ministry considers that the matters dealt with in the Convention are modalities for the realization of constitutional rights. the process and access to the administration of justice. For the Attorney General, the topics contained in the international instrument (i) make it possible to provide legal certainty for citizens, while simplifying and accelerating the procedures for notification and transfer in the (ii) ensure that the notification and transfer of judicial and extrajudicial documents abroad is carried out in a shorter period of time, thereby effectively granting the right to the right of defence; I_aj"> (iii) avoid unnecessary paperwork and simplify procedures, such that judicial proceedings can meet the demands of justice under conditions of speed and effectiveness; and (iv) provide tools for the development of the principle of procedural economics, when establishing a procedure issued for the notification or transfer of the abovementioned documents, at international level.

IV. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONSIDERATIONS AND GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. Nature of the constitutionality control of the approved treaty laws

Pursuant to article 241-10 of the Political Charter, the Constitutional Court is competent to review this international instrument and its approval law. The control of constitutionality carried out by this Corporation is complete, automatic and is related both to the material content of the Convention and its approval law, and to the agreement between its legislative procedure and the rules Applicable constitutional requirements.

In relation to the formal aspect, it is up to the Court to examine the validity of the representation of the Colombian State during the process of negotiation, celebration and subscription of the treaty, as well as the observance of the rules of the procedure. legislative that preceded the passage of the law subject to analysis.

In this regard, this Corporation takes into account that the Political Constitution does not have a special legislative procedure for the issuance of an approval law of an international treaty, in such a way that it must follow, in general terms, the same procedure as an ordinary law. However, this forecast operates with the exception of the obligations of (i) initiation of the debate in the Senate of the Republic, as they deal with matters relating to international relations (Art. 154 C.P.); and (ii) remission of the law passed to the Constitutional Court, by the Government, for the purposes of its definitive review (Art. 241-10 C.P.).

From this perspective it is required, because of the ordinary procedure; (i) the official publication of the bill; (ii) the beginning of the legislative procedure in the constitutional commission corresponding to the Senate of the Republic; (iii) the regulatory approval in the debates of the Commissions and Plenaries of each of the Chambers (Art. 157 C. P.); (iv) that between the first and second debate, a period of not less than eight days is measured and that between the approval of the project in one of the Chambers and the initiation of the debate in the other, at least fifteen days (Art. 160 C. P.); (v) the pre-vote announcement check in each of the debates; and (vi) the presidential sanction and the text's referral to the Constitutional Court within six days (Art. 241-10 C. P.).

Finally, in the face of the material or substantive aspect, the Court's work is to confront the provisions of the international instrument subject to analysis and those of its approval law with the totality of the constitutional precepts, determine whether or not they conform to the Political Charter.

According to this framework of analysis, the Chamber then assumes the study of the treaty.

2. The review by the formal aspect

2.1. State representation, treaty subscription and presidential approval

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs [1] informed this Corporation that the Convention on the Notification of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, hereinafter the Convention, has not been signed by the State because it is an international instrument subject to accession. He also pointed out that the President of the Republic gave him to the Convention Executive Approval on 3 September 2003.

In this regard, the object of the control of constitutionality in this instance has not been attended, since the subscription of the treaty will be produced according to the legal figure of the accession, which will only be verified after this Corporation perfect the revision of its constitutionality and in accordance with the rules that Articles 11 and 15 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties of 1969 provide for the conclusion of treaties. In this sense, as this Corporation has held in similar cases [2], by subtraction of matter it is not possible to study by the Court how this action will be verified only once the constitutionality of the multilateral international instrument.

As for the presidential approval of the Convention, the President of the Republic has to comply with this requirement and order the referral of the text for the Congress, in order to be discussed and approved.

2.2. The legislative process of the bill

The legislative file submitted to the Court by the Congress of the Republic demonstrates that the Bill of Law No 090/04 Senate, 236/05 Chamber, which ended with the issuance of Law 1073 of 2005, "Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters", next step:

2.2.1. Senate of the Republic

2.2.1.1. The corresponding bill was submitted to the Congress of the Republic by the Minister of the Interior and Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

2.2.1.2. His text was published in the Congress Gazette 471 of August 26, 2004 [3].

2.2.1.3. The first debate in the Second Commission of the Senate of the Republic was presented by the Senators Jesus Angel Carrizosa Franco and Habib Merheg Marun and was published in the Congress Gazette 340 of 9 June 2005 [4].

2.2.1.4. According to certification by the Secretary General of the Second Senate Committee of the Republic [5], the bill was announced for discussion and approval in the first debate at the session on June 15, 2005, as stated in the Minutes. Number 37 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 851 of 2 December 2005. In this document it can be verified that the Secretary of the Commission proceeded to " to give reading of the projects that will be discussed in the next session of the Second Commission of the Senate like this: (...) Bill 90 of 2004 Senate, "by means of which the 'Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters' is adopted in Hague on 15 November 1965." (Original grills) [6].

Similarly, the President called the next session, " for tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. m. is the last session of this legislative period to vote on bills that have to do with international treaties " [7]. In that sense, the bill's discussion was announced on June 16, 2005.

2.2.1.5. According to certification by the Secretary of the Second Senate Committee of the Republic, the bill was passed in the first debate on June 16, 2005 (Act No. 38 of the same date, published in the Gazette of the Congress 852 of December 2, 2005), with a deliberative and decision-making quorum composed of 12 of the 13 Senators that make up that Commission, who unanimously approved the initiative.

2.2.1.6. The presentation for the second debate was presented by the Senators Jesus Angel Carrizosa Franco and Habib Merheg Marun, and published in the Congress Gazette 835 of November 24, 2005 [8].

2.2.1.7 According to certification by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic [9], the bill was announced for discussion and approval in the second debate at the session on November 29, 2005, as stated in the Minutes No. 30 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 15 of January 30, 2006 [10]. Studying the text of the said act, it is found that on the instructions of the President of the Senate, the Secretary " announces the projects to be discussed and approved at the next session. (...) Bill 90 of 2004 Senate, " by means of which the 'Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial or Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters' is approved, in The Hague on 15 November 1965.

2.2.1.8. According to certification issued by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic, the bill was considered in the second debate on November 30, 2005, with a deliberative and decision-making quorum of 95 of the 102 Senators that make up the Plenary Assembly. and approved by a majority (Congress Gazette 16 of January 30, 2006 [11]).

2.2.2 House of Representatives

2.2.2.1. For the first debate, Rep. Jairo Martínez Fernández, whose publication was held at the Congress Gazette 131 of May 19, 2006 [12]

2.2.2.2. According to certification issued by the Secretary of the Second Chamber of Representatives, 13 in a joint session on May 17, 2006, the bill was announced and passed (Act No 1 of that date, published in the Congress Gazette 333 of September 1, 2006 [13].

Revised the minutes of this session, it is found that the Secretariat of the Second Chamber of the House, made the announcement that it deals with article 160 C. P., as follows:

" Announced Bills

(...) Bill number 236 of 2005 Chamber, 090 of 2004 Senate, by means of which the Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial Documents or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil Matters is approved and Commercial, made in The Hague on November 15, 1965 " [14].

In the same way, the President of the Commission convened this legislative cell for its next session, to be held on 30 May 2006 [15]

2.2.2.3. According to certification issued by the Secretary General of the Second House of Representatives, the bill was considered and approved in the first debate on May 30, 2006 with the assistance of 13 of the representatives and was approved. by unanimity (Act No 23 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 340 of September 4, 2006).

2.2.2.4. For the second debate, the paper was presented by Rep. Jairo Martínez Fernández and was published in the Congress Gazette 175 of 8 June 2006 [16].

2.2.2.5. As certified by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives [17], the discussion and approval of the bill was announced in session on June 7, 2006 (Act No 234 of the same date, published in the I_aj">Congress Gazette No 220 of August 27, 2005 [18].

In particular, it is noted that in the aforementioned session, the Secretary General of the Chamber, on the orders of the President of that Corporation, made the announcement of the project in the following terms:

" These projects are announced in accordance with Article 160 of the Political Constitution, in the terms that will be discussed and voted on in the next session of the House of Representatives. Representatives. (...) Bill 236 of 2005 House, 690 (sic) of 2004 Senate ".

In this regard, the Court finds that the iron in the bill number in the Senate is attributable, in any case, to an involuntary error of transcription, since the reference of the initiative for the case of the House allows to state without doubt some which is about the announcement of the bill subject to analysis.

Finally, it is found that at the end of the session, it was lifted by the Presidency of the House and called again for "next Tuesday at three in the afternoon", that is, on June 13, 2006.

2.2.2.6. According to the certification issued by the Secretary-General of the Chamber in plenary session on June 13, 2006, to which 153 representatives were present, it was considered and approved by the majority of the present the bill object of the present analysis of constitutionality. (Act No 235 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 229 of July 12, 2006 [19].

2.3. Existence of a subsable vice in the legislative process

From the sequence described, the Court observes that in relation to the bill that ended with the provision object of study, it can be concluded validly that (i) initiated its procedure in the Senate of the Republic; I_aj"> (ii) was previously published at the beginning of the legislative process; (iii) was approved in first and second debate in each of the legislative chambers, in accordance with the majorities required by the Charter and the Congress Regulations; (iv) the papers in committees as in plenary were published before the discussions began; and (v) between the first and second debates in each Chamber, as well as between the approval of the project in one of the Chambers and the initiation of the debate in the other passed the terms outlined in the first paragraph of article 160 Superior.

However, in the case of the pre-vote requirement of the bill, provided for in the final paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution, added by Article 8 of the Act Legislative 1o of 2003, the Court has to make some specific considerations, as long as the fulfillment of this condition during the third debate of the legislative procedure, assortment in the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the Chamber of Representatives, it presents certain vicissitudes that must be analyzed in detail by this Corporation, in order to determine if there is a presence of a vice that affects the legislative procedure.

2.3.1. The unified jurisprudence of this Corporation on the subject [20] provides for the announcement of the vote as a mechanism that guarantees the proper formation of the democratic will within the legislative chambers. This is to the extent that it allows the congressmen to be prior and duly informed about the bills and legislative acts that will be submitted for approval in each session, so that they will not be surprised by the (

) the Commission's proposal for a Council meeting of the European Parliament.

In accordance with these considerations, the Court has provided the conditions of opportunity to be fulfilled by the announcement prior to the vote. In this way, [21] (i) the ad must be present in the vote of any bill; (ii) the announcement must be given by the Presidency of the House or the Commission in a separate session prior to that in which The vote on the project must be carried out; (iii) the date of the vote must be true, this is, determined or at least determinable; and (iv) a bill cannot be voted on in a separate session the one for which it has been announced.

In the same way, previous decisions of this Corporation [22] have assumed different legal problems related to the existence and validity of the previous announcement. On the basis of these discussions, the Court has established defined jurisprudential rules [23] regarding the requirements to be met by this legislative procedure. Thus, it has been arranged, first of all, that there is no sacramental formula or textual phrase to be used by the Congress to make the notice, provided that the expression used unequivocally conveys the intention of the board of directors of to put a specific bill to the vote in a defined future session. In this sense, the Court has granted constitutional validity to expressions such as "consider" or "debate" [24] and, even, it has understood that the simple term "ad", used in the framework of legislative debates with the aim of mentioning the projects that will be discussed in a future session, allows to accredit the fulfillment of the procedure foreseen in the final paragraph of article 160 C. P. This to the extent that a procedure of this nature is only required during the legislative procedure for the intended effects on the cited constitutional rule [25].

Second, the constitutional case law considers that the particular context of discussions or debates can serve as a validation parameter, with the aim of testing " if an announcement was actually made, if the Notice made by the Secretariat at the request of the Presidency included the intention to debate and vote on the announced project and, finally, if the session for which the vote was announced is a determinable date "[26]. Similarly, it has been pointed out by the preceding in that this context of which the validation criteria are extracted not limited to the one of the session in which the announcement was made, but may include other sessions, including those where the vote took place "[27].

In accordance with this criterion, this Corporation has conferred validity on legislative actions that do not in itself give strict clarity on the announcement and the date of the session in which the approval of the project will be verified. In the context of the agreement, the members of the Congress will be able to obtain sufficient certainty about this procedure. By way of example, in Judgment C276/06, which studied the exequability of the legislative procedure that concluded with the issuance of Law 967 of 2005 " of which the Convention on International Guarantees on Mobile Equipment Elements and its Protocol on Specific Issues of the Aircraft Equipment Elements of the Convention on International Guarantees on Elements of Mobile equipment, signed in Cape Town the sixteen (16) November of two thousand one (2001) " the Court endorsed the constitutionality of the ad, when the House used the expressions" to debate "or" for discussion "in an" next session ", as long as these, understood within the context of the legislative process, allowed the members of the Court of First Instance, the Court of First Instance of the Court of First Instance the Court of First Instance of the Court of First Instance of the Court of First Instance "a vote" would have given greater certainty about the procedure, sacramental formula when, as was the case in the subject under study at that time, the context allowed to give a sense of meaning to these words.

To the contrary, in the 2006 Auto 311 the Court concluded the existence of a vice in the formation of Law 1017 of 2006, " by means of which the ' Convention on Laundering, detection and confiscation of the proceeds of a crime ', done in Strasbourg on 8 November 1990', since the announcement made during the procedure in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives did not give a date for the vote determinable, even if it was appealed to the processing context as a validation parameter.

To arrive at this conclusion, the Chamber identified the conditions established by the constitutional case law so that it can be validly preached that the date for which the announcement was made is determined or determinable. To this end, he recalled the precedent set by the Court in Auto 089/05, according to which this condition requires for its fulfillment that in a previous session the projects that will be discussed and voted on in a session will be announced. After the date of the adoption of the decision,Commission shall take the necessary steps to ensure that the decision is taken. Likewise, the judgment brought to the court the analysis carried out by this Corporation in Judgment C-649/06, in which the inexilibility of Law 992 of 2005, approved by the Agreement for the integral development and basic assistance of the indigenous Wayuu populations of the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Venezuela, a rule whose unconstitutionality was founded precisely in the impossibility of determining the date for which the vote was announced in one of the debates of the legislative procedure. The Court's arguments at that time were as follows:

In fact, from the above facts it follows. First, in the pre-vote session there was no warning in which future session the bill would be voted on. Secondly, the explanatory note refers only to the verb used (to announce instead of approving), and nothing says about the essential aspects of the ad, e.g., the session which at a certain date, determined or determinable, will be destined to vote on the Bill of law. Third, prior to the clarifying note, it was approved and published in the Congress Gazette the minutes of the session in which the Secretary of the Second Commission says "here it is approved," without any clarification. Fourthly, the explanatory note is subsequent to the vote and therefore cannot be understood as suitable for the lack of prior announcement. What's more, the clarifying note is published in a Gazette about a year after the vote on the Senate's Second Commission. Finally, from the context in which the facts were presented, it cannot be reasonably deduced that it has been announced with a sufficient degree of certainty in which the corresponding bill would be voted on, as required by the article 160 of the Letter.

Based on these considerations, the Court found that in the procedure under review, the constitutional requirement of the vote was not met, since in " the case, as it follows from the Act No 12 of 2005, before the end of the debate by the President of the Commission and the request to the General Secretariat to continue with the reading of the agenda, the Secretariat reported: " Mr. President, it would be announce 3 projects, " without the effect having indicated, nor did the President, for which date or for which session the vote was scheduled. " This conclusion remains even before the alternative of appealing to the discussion context as a validation parameter, since " of the content of the Minutes are not extracted any item from which it can be deduced for which session or which date the vote of the project was scheduled, regardless of whether the approval of the project had occurred in the following session. The omission in the indication of the date or session in which such a procedure should take place makes that announcement not determined or determinable and, therefore, contrary to the requirements set out in the case-law. "

Finally, the above mentioned precedent states that the pretermission of the requirement is a vice of a subsable nature, in the case of the laws approving treaties, provided that the corresponding legislative procedure has been verified in its the Senate of the Republic, consolidating with it one of the structural stages of the process of formation of the law. In terms of the case-law, the possibility of vice-healing of vice is conditional on the fact that the has given its opinion in such a way that the House where the constitutional mandate has to begin the process of The laws approving a treaty have fully expressed their will. Thus, one of the structural stages of the process, e.g., approval by the Senate, will have been completed without any vice "[28].

The above, however, must be applied in every legislative procedure in harmony with the need to protect the rights of minorities represented in Congress. Therefore, as the Court has set out in Auto 089/05, the subsainable nature of vice is also subject to the preservation of the rights of minorities within the legislative process. As noted in this providence, vice will become insubsable when " affects the principle of representativeness of the opinion of minorities, so that, if it has not been presented, the results of the vote would have been determined a course other than the act submitted for approval "[29].

On the basis of these considerations, the Chamber should analyze the scope, in terms of the constitutionality of the legislative procedure, of the announcement made during the procedure in the third debate of the bill that preceded the href="ley_1073_2006.html#1"> 1073/06.

2.3.2. As noted in previous paragraph, the previous announcement during the third debate of the procedure was held at the joint session on May 17, 2006, due to the National Government's message of urgency regarding the discussion and approval. Bill 254/06 Senate, 271/06 House "by means of which the acquisition of goods and services for the defense and national security is regulated." Approved this initiative by both legislative cells, the announcements and calls were made for the following sessions in each of the committees. In this regard, on page 12 of the Congress Gazette 333 of September 1, content of the minutes of the joint session, you can read the following:

" (...)

The Second House Committee runs out of the Order of the Day and convenes for Wednesday ... the following Tuesday after elections.

The Secretary General of the Second Senate Committee, Dr. Felipe Ortiz Marulanda, has been speaking:

The Second Senate Committee then announces for the Wednesday, May 31 Session outside of the projects already announced in Bill No. 171 of 2005, Bill No. 121 of 2005, Bill No. 126 2005, the 195 of 2005, the 198 of 2005, and 219 of 2005 that were placed in the Order of the Day for discussion of today, remain for Wednesday, May 31.

The General Secretariat of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Dr. Rocio López Robayo, has been used to speak

Mr. President to inform you that there is a ...

The President of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Representative Efren Antonio Hernandez Diaz, has been used to speak:

Secretary announced Senate projects, we announced House projects and there is a proposition.

The General Secretariat of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Dr. Rocio López Robayo, has been used to speak

Mr. President, yes,

Proposition.

" ... Proposal presented by the honourable Representative Guillermo Abel Rivera Florez, under the recent events in the area of trade and diplomatic relations and specifically those of rapprochement, possibilities and/or negotiations I would like to ask the honourable Member of the House to make an urgent request to the honourable Member of the House to make an urgent request for a debate on control of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The president of the Foreign Ministry, Dr. Carolina Barco, to clarify what happens to the regarding ... ".

The President of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Representative Efren Antonio Hernandez Diaz, has been used to speak:

Their discussion opens, the proposal read by Rep. Guillermo Rivera, a notice that will be closed. Does the Second Commission approve the proposal read? Approved.

The General Secretariat of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Dr. Rocio López Robayo, has been used to speak

Announced Bills.

-- 239 of 2005 Camara, 072 of 2005 Senate, by means of which the " Economic Complementation Agreement number 33 Free Trade Agreement concluded between the Republic of Colombia, the United Mexican States and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Sixth Additional Protocol ", signed in the City of Montevideo.

Bill No. 277 of 2006 Camara, 066 of 2005 Senate, by means of which is declared as cultural and sports heritage of the Nation the Modern Stadium Julio Torres cradle of Colombian District football Branquilla special.

-- Bill No. 178 of 2005 House, 249 of 2005 Senate, by means of which the "Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purposes of detection" is approved.

-- House No. 261 Bill, 068 of the Senate, by which honors are honored to the country's private and public service vehicle drivers and declares National Driver's Day.

-- Bill No. 238 of 2005 House, 256 of the Senate, by means of which crimes of non-compliance with the administrative decision, expulsion and illegal reinstatement to the country of foreigners are typified for the purpose of protect the security of the State.

-- House Bill No. 264, 073 of 2005 Senate, by means of which the amendment of Article 1 of the Convention on provisions is approved, on discussions of the use of certain weapons which may be considered to be excessively harmful or of indiscriminate effects, approved in Geneva in 2001.

-- Bill 236 of 2005 House, 090 of 2004 Senate, by means of which the Convention on the notification or transfer abroad of judicial documents in civil or commercial matters is approved, made in The Hague on November 15, 1965.

The Secretary General of the Second Senate Committee, Dr. Felipe Ortiz Marulanda, has been speaking:

The Second Senate Committee also announces Bill 108 of 2005.

The President of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Representative Efren Antonio Hernandez Diaz, has been used to speak:

[passage] SoJoint Session of the Congress of the Republic's Second Commission for the Second Chamber is being concluded, and the Congressmen of this Commission are called or are summoned to the next Tuesday, 30 May, of the present year.

use of the word the honorable Senator Habib Merheg Marun:

Agoted the Order of the Day for the Senate as well, then again is called for Wednesday 31 and we will review the announced projects. Thank you very much.

The Session is closed at 11:20 a.m. m. ".

Examined this stage of the session, the Chamber notes that in the event of compliance with the requirement of the announcement of the vote by the Second Commission of the House of Representatives, the Secretariat was limited to indicating the (i_aj"> "notice of bills" expression that, in itself, does not allow to elucidate with clarity a certain or determinable date in which the session will be held in which the discussion and approval of the project will take place. After the end of the day, the board of directors of the joint committees ended the session, and then meetings were convened for the Senate and House Committees. However, the date for which the projects announced by the Secretariat of the Second Chamber of the House would be subject to discussion and approval was not defined. Therefore, there is a vice in the process of the bill, in accordance with the jurisprudential rules summarized in this section.

This conclusion is reinforced by the procedure carried out by the Secretariat of the Second Senate Committee to fulfill the aforementioned requirement. In fact, the Court observes that it was expressly stated in that instance that the projects announced there would be studied at the sitting of Wednesday 31 May 2006. Contrary sense, the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, at the time of the announcement, limited itself to enumerating the projects, without establishing any precision on the date of the future session in which they would be submitted to vote.

The exposed shutdown persists, even if context is used as the announcement validation parameter. It should be emphasized that during the session, no reference is made to the session in which the announced projects for the House of Representatives case will be discussed and approved. Thus, once the bills for this legislative cell were listed, the session was completed and the following meetings were held for each committee, with no mention of the date of the vote on the initiatives. mentioned.

In view of the fact that the legislative procedure has been established, it is up to the Court to determine whether it is of a subsanctible nature. In this respect, in accordance with the unified position of the case-law applicable to the matter, the irregularity presented falls within the assumptions of subsability provided by this Corporation, as long as (i) vicio occurred during the third debate of the procedure, that is, when the approval of the bill had already been verified in the Senate of the Republic, thus fulfilling one of the structural stages of the process of formation of the law; and i_aj"> (ii) the votes during the whole procedure were unanimous, without that there is a substantial opposition to the original version of the project established by the National Government, which is why there is no evidence of the violation of the rights of the parliamentary minorities.

Having regard to the foregoing and in a similar manner to the way this Corporation has ordered in previous decisions [30], the Court will return the bill to the Second Commission of the House of Representatives, in which the vice of procedure, for the purposes of resuming the processing of the bill, giving compliance to the notice for a vote provided for in the final article of article 160 Superior and in accordance with the rules expressed in this providence.

In that regard, as provided for in the paragraph of article 241 C. P. and article 202 of Law 5th of 1992, the Court grants the Chamber a term not more than 30 days, counted from the notification of this providence, in order to correct the vice. To this end, in one of the sessions of the Constitutional Commission the vote on the project will be announced for a certain future date, informing the representatives of the number of the Congress Gazette published the paper for the first debate in the said Commission or, if the presidency of the legislative cell considers it appropriate, through the distribution of copies of it.

Verified this procedure, the Congress will have until June 20, 2007, the date on which the present legislature ends, to conclude the process of formation of the law. On this particular point, it must be stated, as has been stated in the case law, that an order of this nature is compatible with the prohibition contained in Article 162 C. P., since the limit of two legislatures applies exclusively to the original formation of the law, without it being able to extend to additional time limits set by the Constitutional Court in order to remedy procedural defects [31].

law must be sent to the Court to decide on the exequability of the act, as provided for in the paragraph of article 241 Higher.

On the latter particular, it should be noted that the presidential sanction, as it relates to the same approving act subject to analysis, will not contract the change in the identification of the law. In this sense, the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, at the time of exercising the jurisdiction provided for in Article 8 of Decree 2719 of 2000, will retain the number of Law 1073 of July 31, 2006. This is because, as this Corporation [32] has maintained, the underhealing of a vice in the legislative process by the Congress does not contract any modification in relation to the nominal identification of the bill and the law Resulting approval.

V. DECISION

Based on the previous motivations, the Plena Room of the Constitutional Court, administering justice on behalf of the People and by mandate of the Constitution,

RESOLVES:

First. By General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court, return to the House of Representatives Presidency Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, " by means of which the 'Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters', made in The Hague on 15 November 1965 ", in order to process the vice-healing of the procedure identified in this providence.

Second. Concede to the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the House of Representatives the term of 30 days, counted from the notification of this order to the Presidency of the itself, to remedy the vice detected in this providence.

Third. Once the vice referred to in the consideration of this provision has been remedied, the House of Representatives will have until June 20, 2007, to fulfill the later stages of the legislative process. Then, the President of the Republic will have the deadline set in the Charter to sanction the bill.

Fourth. The President of the Congress will forward to the Court the Law 1073 of 2006, in order to decide definitively on his exequability.

Copy, notify, communicate, insert in the Constitutional Court Gazette and comply.

Rodrigo Escobar Gil, President; Jaime Araujo Renteria (with save vote); Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, Jaime Cordoba Trivino, Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Alvaro Tafur Galvis, Clara Ines Vargas Hernandez, Magistrates; Martha Victoria Sachica Mendez, General Secretariat.

***

1. Cfr. Communication of 28 August 2006, signed by the Coordinator of the Treaty Area of the Legal Advisory Office. Portfolio 1 of Test Notebook 6.

2. Regarding this particular case, the Sentences C-002/96, M. P. José Gregorio Hernández Galindo, C-249/99, M. P. Antonio Barrera Carbonell and José Gregorio Hernández Galindo and C-276/06, M. P. Manuel José, can be consulted. Cepeda Espinosa.

3. Cfr. Pages 3 to 9 of the test notebook 1.

4. Cfr. Portfolio 108 of the 3.

notebook.

5. Cfr. Portfolio 1 of Test Notebook 1.

6. Cfr. Congress Gazette 851/05, p. 2.

7. Ibidem, p. 12.

8. Cfr. Folios 97 to 99 of the 3.

test notebook.

9. Cfr. Folio 86 of test notebook 2.

10. Cfr. Folio 135 of the test notebook 2.

11. Cfr. Folio 176 (reverse) of test notebook 2.

12. Cfr. Folios 101 (reverse) to 102 of test notebook 3.

13. Cfr. Folios 1 to 2 of the test notebook 3.

14. Cfr. Congress Gazette 333/06 p. 12.

15. Ibm

16. Cfr. Folio 128 of test notebook 3.

17. Cfr. Folio 3 of test notebook 5.

18. Cfr. Folio 171 of test notebook 5.

19. Cfr. Folio 94 of test notebook 5.

20. The Court's recent collection of the case can be found in the case of Auto 311/06. In this opportunity, the plenary identified a subsable vice in the announcement for the vote in the third debate of the legislative procedure that concluded with the issuance of Law 1017 of 2006, " of which the 'Convention on the laundering, detection and confiscation of the proceeds of a crime'adopted in Strasbourg on 8 November 1990 '. Consequently, he ordered to return the rule to the House of Representatives, so that it would go through the procedure in order to correct the vice in the announcement of the vote in the Second Commission of that congressional body.

21. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Statement C-576/06.

22. In this regard, Auto 311/06 refers to Sentences C-400/05, C-473/05, C-1151/05, C-322/06, C- 576/06, as well as Auto 089/05.

23. On these jurisprudential rules, Cfr. Constitutional Court, Auto 311/06.

24. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Statement C-473/05.

25. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Statement C-1040/05.

26. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Auto 311/06.

27. Ibidem.

28. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Statement C-576/06.

29. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Auto A-311/06.

30. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-576/06 and auto A-311/06.

31. Cfr. Constitutional Court, auto A-089/05.

32. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-863/06 and Auto A-018/07. On the particular subject of the double numbering of the laws, after the subhealing of a procedural vice, the aforementioned sentence stipulated the following:

" The presidential sanction is limited to 'approving the corresponding project' by the 'government' and 'to attest to its authenticity'. In addition, according to Decree 2719 of 2000, the numbering is given on 'already sanctioned laws', for being such a numbering of the law, an administrative procedure that must be carried out 'keeping a numerical sequence indefinite and not per year', the requirement laid down in Article 194 of Law 5 of 1992. | | The constitutional jurisprudence in previous situations in which a law has been sent back to Congress to be remedied by the suffering of forms of vices, accounts for the fact that the law number has generally been respected in the process of initially assigned. This is the case, for example, of the 1992 C-607 Statement, (M. P. Alejandro Martínez Caballero), in which the Law 1of 1992, which suffered from a vices of form, was returned to the Congress. After being subsated in its processing and sanctioned at a second opportunity, its original law number was respected. So the Constitutional Court, once corrected the vice of form that fell on the Law 1of 1992, declared it exequable. In the sanction, the National Government, with signatures of the President of the Republic and the Minister of Government of the moment, sanctioned the corrected bill, as follows: ' In compliance with what was ordered by the Constitutional Court, The National Government endorses the acts by which the Congress of the Republic subsated the procedural vices in which it incurred in issuing the Law 1of 1992 ". | | In the case at hand, the Court warns the following: (i) the first number of laws-869 of 2004-is the one that identifies the approved law subject to the control exercised in this process; (ii) the will of the Legislator, in compliance with the Auto 089 of 2005, was to correct the vice of form established by this Corporation in the formation of Law 896 of 2004; (iii) the draft law always corresponded to it, that is, to 212/03 Senate, 111/03 Chamber, as can be confirmed in all the papers and debates that were submitted to the Congress, and in its referral for presidential sanction. | | Now, an administrative error was made in the numbering, when a second number was assigned to the same law after the vice in the formation of the same law. However, this error does not change the content of the law or affect the process of its formation in the Congress of the Republic. For the Court therefore, the present analysis of constitutionality is understood to be carried out on the Law 896 of 2004 that approved the ' Convention between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the Republic of Colombia "Bolivia for the recovery of cultural goods and other specific stolen, imported or illicitly exported", signed in the city of La Paz, at twenty (20) days of August of the year two thousand one (2001) ".

Ir al inicio