Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Berdasarkan sifat dari prinsip keadilan bahwa tidak ada seorangpun yang diperbolehkan untuk memperkaya diri dari pengeluaran orang lain, pemahaman ini disebut dengan doktrin unjust enrichment. Di Indonesia, konsep dari doktrin unjust enrichment ini diadopsi dalam pasal 1359 ayat (1) KUHPerdata, yaitu pasal yang menjelaskan mengenai pembayaran yang tidak diwajibkan. Akan tetapi, pemahaman unjust enrichment tidak hanya sebatas pada pembayaran yang tidak diwajibkan atau terutang saja melainkan lebih dari itu. Unjust enrichment bahkan juga terjadi pada kasus melakukan suatu pekerjaan antara Pengusaha dan Pekerja.Seperti pada putusan nomor 373/G/PHI/2007/PN.JKT.PST yang dianalisis, mencerminkan doktrin unjust enrichment. Putusan Hakim pada tingkat kasasi mengabulkan gugatan para penggugat untuk memberikan kembali hak-hak Para Penggugat yang ditahan atau diterima oleh Tergugat, berupa keuntungan atau manfaat dari jasa pekerjaan yang Para Penggugat lakukan. Namun, hak yang diterima Tergugat yaitu upah kerjanya tidak adil. Dapat dikatakan secara tidak disadari Majelis Hakim pada tingkat kasasi telah menerapkan doktrin unjust enrichment dalam putusannya.

---

By the nature of justice principle, there is nobody should be unjustly enriched at another?s expense; this comprehension was called by unjust enrichment. In Indonesia, unjust enrichment doctrin was adopted under article 1359 paragraph 1 Inonesian Civil Code (ICC) which explains that without legal ground or unobligatory payment. But then, unjust enrichment comprehension is just not about without legal ground payment but more of it. Unjust enrichment could find in services contract between employer and employee.In this Jurisprudence was registered number is 373/G/PHI/2007/PN.JKT.PST which is analyzed in this undergraduate thesis, is reflect on unjust enrichment doctrin. The Judges in Supreme Court was granting the plaintif?s claim to gave them their rights back, which was endure by the defendant, like profit and benefit from Plaintif?s services. However, the benefit that receives by the defendant such as labourage is unjust. The conclusion is Supreme Court Judges has unconsciously applied the doctrin of unjust enrichment in their jurisprudence."

"Tulisan ini menganalisis mengenai bagaimana konsep doktrin unjust enrichment dalam sistem hukum Amerika Serikat dan peraturannya di Indonesia. Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal dan pendekatan komparatif. Doktrin unjust enrichment merupakan prinsip umum di mana seseorang tidak boleh diperkaya secara tidak adil dari kekayaan orang lain, sehingga harus mengembalikannya kepada orang yang berhak atas kekayaan tersebut. American Law Institute telah menerbitkan Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichmentyang berisikan prinsip umum, tanggung jawab ganti rugi, pemulihan hak, dan pembelaan terhadap unjust enrichment. Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata Indonesia sudah mengatur mengenai unjust enrichment, tetapi hanya sebatas pengayaan yang tidak adil berdasarkan pembayaran saja. Dalam praktiknya, konsep doktrin unjust enrichment telah ditemui pada beberapa putusan di Indonesia, tetapi dikategorikan sebagai tindak hukum lain. Maka dari itu, Indonesia perlu mengadakan pembaharuan terhadap hukum keperdataannya, terutama pengadaan peraturan terkait doktrin unjust enrichment agar tercipta kelengkapan dan kepastian hukum.

---

This paper analyzes the concept of the unjust enrichment doctrine in the United States legal system and its regulation in Indonesia. This paper is prepared by using a doctrinal research method and a comparative approach. The unjust enrichment doctrine is a general principle in which a person should not be unjustly enriched from the wealth of others, so that he must return it to the person who is entitled to the wealth. The American Law Institute has published the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment which contains general principles, liability in restitution, remedies, and defenses to unjust enrichment. The Indonesian Civil Code already regulates unjust enrichment, but only to the extent of unjust enrichment based on payment. In practice, the concept of unjust enrichment doctrine has been found in several decisions in Indonesia, but it is categorized as another legal act. Therefore, Indonesia needs to reform its civil law, especially the provision of regulations related to unjust enrichment doctrine to create completeness and legal certainty."

"Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata yang berlaku di Indonesia tidak mengenal secara eksplisit mengenai Kuasi Kontrak. Namun, Kuasi Kontrak dapat dipersamakan dengan ketentuan yang mengatur mengenai Negotiorum Gestio (Perwakilan Sukarela) dan Solutio Indebiti (Pembayaran yang tidak wajib) pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. Skripsi ini akan membandingkan hukum kontrak di Indonesia dengan sistem hukum Common law yakni mengenai ketentuan mengenai Negotiorum Gestio dan Solutio Indebiti dengan Kuasi Kontrak sebagai Equitable Remedies di Inggris dan Amerika Serikat. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa terdapat persamaan dan perbedaan kuasi kontrak dalam hal pengertian, syarat, dan bentuk pemulihannya. Adanya perbedaan dan persamaan yang ditermukan dalam penelitian ini adalah akibat dari adanya perbedaan tradisi hukum yang dianut oleh ketiga negara.

---

Indonesian Civil Code did not openly recognize the term of Quasi Contract. However, the concept of Quasi Contract are identical with the provisions regarding Negotiorum Gestio (Managements of another's affais) and Solutio Indebiti in the Indonesian Civil Code. This Paper compares the law of contracts in Indonesia with Common Law, regarding the provisions of Negotiorum Gestio and Solutio Indebiti (Payment of Something not Owed) with Quasi Contract as an Equitable Remedies in England and United States. This study is a normative juridical research. Results of this study shows that there are similarity and differences concerning Quasi Contract in sense of Definition, Terms, and Remedies. Similaritis and differences found, are the results of the difference law tradition that the three countries abide to."

"Skripsi ini membahas tentang doktrin unjust enrichment yang telah dikenal pertama kali di negara-negara common law. Doktrin tersebut merupakan perluasan dari gugatan perdata yang sudah ada yaitu wanprestasi dan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum PMH . Setelah penerapan doktrin tersebut diakui pada negara-negara common law, negara-negara civil law mulai mengenal doktrin unjust enrichment. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penulisan ini adalah metode penelitian kepustakaan dengan data sekunder yang bersifat yuridis normatif yaitu penelitian yang mengacu pada norma hukum yang terdapat dalam peraturan perundang-undangan dan norma-norma yang berlaku dan mengikat kehidupan masyarakat. Di Perancis diatur secara khusus di dalam France Civil Code pada tahun 1892 di Buku III Pasal 1303. Begitu juga di Belanda diatur di dalam Dutch Civil Code tahun 1992 di Buku 6 Bab 4 Pasal 212. Sedangkan di Indonesia, belum diatur secara khusus mengenai doktrin unjust enrichment dalam ketentuan undang-undang. Namun bukan berarti Indonesia tidak mengenal doktrin ini. Terdapat salah satu konsep unjust enrichment secara tersirat dalam pasal 1359 KUHPerdata. Dalam pengaturannya di pasal 1359 KUHPerdata menjelaskan bahwa dapat dituntut kembali suatu pembayaran yang tidak diwajibkan. Isi dari pasal tersebut tergambar dari beberapa putusan maupun penetapan pengadilan seperti putusan nomor 1749 K/Pdt/2010, penetapan nomor 253/Pdt.P/2014/PNSkt, dan putusan nomor 732 K/Pdt/2013. Skripsi ini berisi tentang sejarah doktrin unjust enrichment serta tantangan dan hambatan dalam menerapkan doktrin unjust enrichment dalam putusan-putusan pengadilan.

---

This thesis discusses about the unjust enrichment doctrine has been first recognized in common law countries. It is an extension of existing civil lawsuits such as event of default and tort. After the implementation of the unjust enrichment doctrine is recognized in common law countries, civil law countries are beginning to recognize the unjust enrichment doctrine as well. The research method used in this paper is library research method with secondary data that is juridical normative, which is a research that refers to the legal norms appeared in legislations and norms that bind the society. Unjust enrichment has been specially regulated in the French Civil Code in 1892 in Book III, Article 1303. Similarly, in the Netherlands, unjust enrichment has been regulated in the Dutch Civil Code of 1992 in Book 6, Chapter 4, Article 212. While in Indonesia, unjust enrichment has not been specifically regulated in the regulations of the law. But that does not mean Indonesia does not recognize this doctrine. The unjust enrichment doctrine implicitly appeared in Article 1359 of Indonesian Civil Code. Article 1359 of the Indonesian Civil Code explains that each payment which was not made pursuant to a debt may be reclaim. This article tries to explain how this doctrine to be implemented in the court decisions. What the court considerations in implemented such doctrine. What are the opportunities and challenges of such doctrine to be implemented in Indonesia."

"The immunity or exemption enjoyed by States from legal proceedings before foreign national courts is a crucial area of international law. On the basis of an exhaustive analysis of judicial decisions, international treaties, national legislation, government statements, deliberations in international organisations as well as scholarly opinion, Xiaodong Yang traces the historical development of the relevant doctrine and practice, critically analyses the rationale for restrictive immunity and closely inspects such important exceptions to immunity as commercial transactions, contracts of employment, tortious liability, separate entities, the enforcement of judgments, waiver of immunity and the interplay between State immunity and human rights. The book draws a full picture of the law of State immunity as it currently stands and endeavours to provide useful information and guidance for practitioners, academics and students alike"

"Summary:The book argues that clarity of responsibility increases accountability and decreases corruption levels in democracies. The authors provide a number of empirical tests of this argument using an original cross-national time-series dataset, mass survey data, and a survey experimen"

"ABSTRAKBank adalah suatu institusi yang salah satu tugasnya adalah menghimpun dana darimasyarakat. Dalam pelaksanaan tugasnya tersebut, Bank harus mematuhi peraturanperundang-undang perbankan yang ada, serta menerapkan prinsip-prinsip serta asas-asasperbankan. Dengan kondisi tidak diterapkannya peraturan perundangan, prinsip-prinsip danasas-asas perbankan pada suatu institusi bank, memberikan peluang timbulnya perbuatanmenyimpang dan/atau perbuatan melawan hukum dalam sistem bank tersebut. Dalampraktiknya sering kali timbul maksud dan tujuan untuk melakukan perbuatan secaramelawan hukum oleh pegawai bank dalam jabatannya, maka bank seringkali gagal dalammeminimalisir risiko kerugian yang akan ditanggung institusi dan nasabahnya. Kerugian initidak hanya ditanggung baik oleh masyarakat perorangan, namun juga sering kali harusditanggung oleh suatu perusahaan, dan dalam perkembangannya dapat ditanggung pula olehbadan usaha milik negara. Kerugian ini kemudian dianggap merugikan keuangan negara,sehingga diperiksa baik melalui pengadilan negeri untuk memeriksa secara perdata danmelalui pengadilan tindak pidana korupsi untuk memeriksa pelaku perorangannya. Putusanpengadilan seringkali menimbulkan penggantian kerugian keuangan negara yang berganda,sehingga dibutuhkan sistem ganti kerugian yang tepat untuk dapat menyelesaikanpermasalahan tersebut.Penelitian ini bersifat yuridis normatif, dengan metode analisa deskriptif dari data sekunderyang diperoleh.

---

ABSTRACTBank is an institution that one of its duties is to accomodate public funds. In the performanceof its duties, the Bank must comply with the banking rules also the principles andfundamentals of banking. With conditions the principles and fundamentals of banking wasnot complied in the banking institution, it will provide an incidence of aberrant behaviourand/or an act against the law in the banking system. The existing legislation, together withthe fundamentals and principles of banking also the application of good corporategovernance and risk management at the bank are expected to help the bank reduce their riskfor the bank its self as well as to its customers in order to carry out its business activities. Inpractice often arising the intents and objectives to do unlawful act by the banker on her/hisposition, therefore bank often failed to minimize the risk of loss which will be borne by itselfand its customers. This loss is not only borne by the customer as personal, but also often tobe borne by the company, and more evolved may be borne by the state-owned company.This loss was considered as a state financial losses therefore was examined either throughthe district court under civil law and through the court of criminal acts of corruption toexamine their individual perpetrator. The court decision often causes a double indemnities ofstate financial losses, therefore it needs a proper indemnity system to solve the problem."