Premium for the Attorney General's Office: Its Recognition in Ley 4, 1992

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25057/2500672X.1440

Keywords:

Jurisprudence, premium, Basic allowance, Salary factor
Abstract Authors References How to Cite

Abstract

This research work aims to analyze the application of the normative and jurisprudential criteria on the payment of a bonus, recognized by Ley 4, 1992 for the special regime of public prosecutors' officials. To this end, it will be necessary to address the regulatory framework that applies to the payment of the premium, which implies an analysis of its legal and constitutional basis, its scope, exceptions, salary and benefit effects. Secondly, it will be necessary to analyze the jurisprudential evolution of the Constitutional Court, as well as some unification rulings of the Council of State in relation to the payment of the premium. Consequently, the most significant finding has been the impending recognition of the premium in the terms stated in the jurisprudence, deriving the authority for the pertinent claim.

Author Biographies

Estefany del Carmen Fierro Carbonell, Institución Universitaria de Envigado

  • Industrial Engineer.
  • Specialist in Occupational Health.
  • Tenth semester law student.
  • Specialist in Administrative Labor Law from IUE. ecfierro@correo.iue.edu.co

Luz Myriam Alcalá Rodríguez, Institución Universitaria de Envigado

  • Lawyer.
  • Master in Procedural Penal Law.
  • Specialist in Administrative Labor Law from IUE. lmalcala@correo.iue.edu.co

References

Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. (1991). Constitución Política de Colombia. 10 de octubre de 1991. Bogotá, Colombia.

Congreso de la República. (1992). Ley 4 de 1992. Diario Oficial: n.° 40451. (18 de mayo1992). Bogotá, Colombia.

Congreso de la República. (1996). Ley 332 de 1996. Diario Oficial: n.° 42948. (19 de diciembre 1996). Bogotá, Colombia.

Congreso de la República. (1998). Ley 476 de 1998. Diario Oficial: n.° 43382. (9 de septiembre 1998). Bogotá, Colombia.

Consejo de Estado. (2004). Radicado 11001-03-25-000-2001-0043-01 (712-01). Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo. Sección Segunda. Consejero Ponente. Nicolás Pájaro Peñaranda. 15 de abril de 2004

Consejo de Estado. (2005). Radicado 11001-03-25-000-1997-17021-01(17021). Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo. Sección Segunda. Consejero Ponente: Ana Margarita Olaya Forero. 3 de marzo de 2005. Bogotá, Colombia.

Consejo de Estado. (2009). Radicado 1831-07. Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Segunda. Consejero Ponente: Gustavo Eduardo Gómez Aranguren. 2 de marzo de 2009. Bogotá, Colombia.

Consejo de Estado. (2019). Radicado Proceso 41001-23-33-000-2016-00041-02 (2204-2018. Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Segunda. Sentencia De Unificación - SUJ-016-CE-S2-2019. Consejero Ponente: Carmen Anaya De Castellanos. 2 de septiembre de 2019. Bogotá, Colombia.

Consejo de Estado. (2020). Radicado 15001 23 33 000 2016 00630 01 (4083-2017). Sección Segunda. 11 de junio de 2020. Sentencia de Unificación CE-SUJ-S2-021-20. Bogotá, Colombia.

Consejo de Estado. (2020). Radicado: 73001-23-33-000-2017-00568-01 (5472-18). Sección Segunda. Sentencia de Unificación SUJ-023-CE-S2- 2020. Consejero Ponente: Jorge Iván Rincón Córdoba. 15 de diciembre de 2020. Bogotá, Colombia.

Corte Constitucional. (1996). Sentencia C 279. Magistrado Ponente: Hugo Palacios Mejía. 24 de junio de 1996. Bogotá, Colombia.

Corte Constitucional. (1997). Sentencia C 312. Magistrado Ponente: Eduardo Cifuentes. 25 de junio de 1997. Bogotá, Colombia.

Corte Constitucional. (2003). Sentencia C 681. Conjuez Ponente: Ligia Galvis Ortiz. 6 de agosto de 2003. Bogotá, Colombia.

Corte Constitucional. (2011). Sentencia C 634. Magistrado Ponente: Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva. 24 de agosto de 2011. Bogotá, Colombia.

Presidente de la República. (1992). Decreto 900. Diario Oficial: n.° 40461. (2 de junio 1992). Bogotá: Colombia.

Presidente de la República. (1993). Decreto 53 de 1993. Diario Oficial: n.° 40711. (7 de enero 1993). Bogotá, Colombia.

Presidente de la República. (2007). Decreto 2699 de 2007. Estatuto Orgánico de la Fiscalía General de la Nación. Diario Oficial 40.190. (30 de noviembre 1991). Bogotá: Colombia.

Presidente de la República. (2021). Decreto 272 de 2021. (11 de marzo 2021). Ministerio de Justicia y Derecho. Bogotá, Colombia.

Tribunal Administrativo de Casanare. (2017). Expediente 85001233300020140024900. Sala de Conjueces. Nulidad y restablecimiento del Derecho., C.P. Gladys García Barray. Casanare, Colombia.

Tribunal Administrativo de Boyacá. (2020). Expediente: 15001233300020160035900. Sala de Conjueces. Nulidad y restablecimiento del Derecho. C.P. Martín Hernández Sánchez. Boyacá, Colombia.

How to Cite

Fierro Carbonell, E. del C., & Alcalá Rodríguez, L. M. (2022). Premium for the Attorney General’s Office: Its Recognition in Ley 4, 1992. Nuevo Derecho, 18(30), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.25057/2500672X.1440

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2022-06-30

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 30 (2022): January - June

Section

Artículos

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Nuevo Derecho

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors should declare that the article is an original work that has not been totally or partially published in any print or electronic media, which has not been submitted simultaneously to another publication and that is not currently under evaluation in another publication. On the other hand, I leave (we) evidence that the statements made therein are the sole responsibility of the / the authors / is.

All data and references to already published material are properly identified with their respective credit and included in the bibliographical notes and appointments that stand out as such and, in cases that require it, I have the proper authorizations for those with the respective rights; in case of any dispute or claim relating to intellectual property rights, we take responsibility exonerating responsibility to Nuevo Derecho.

If the article is approved for publication, the authors transfer the copyright to the journal New law to publish, distribute electronic copies and included in indexing services, directories or databases of national and international data on Open Access under the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution-Noncommercial (CC bY-NC-SA) by which the authors retain their copyrights and allow them to others copy and distribute your work provided they recognize the corresponding authorship and the work is not used for purposes commercial.

Therefore, new law does not retain the rights to reproduce or copy (copyright), so the authors will have the final versions, to disseminate them in institutional repositories, personal blogs or any other electronic or print media, with the sole condition to make mention of the original source of publication, in this case Nuevo Derecho.

Altmetric

Crossref Cited-by logo
Article metrics
Abstract views
Galley vies
PDF Views
HTML views
Other views