Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Dalam skripsi ini dibahas tentang pembatalan putusan KPPU oleh Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat yang menyatakan bahwa PT. Bank Rakyat Indonesia tidak terbukti melanggar pasal 15 ayat (2) dan 19 huruf a Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999 dalam melakukan kerjasama bancassurance bersama perusahaan asuransi rekanan dalam penyediaan produk Kredit Pemilikan Rumah. Dalam pertimbangan hukumnya Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat menyatakan bahwa perjanjian kerjasama yang dilakukan PT. BRI dan perusahaan asuransi rekanannya merupakan pewujudan pelaksanaan prinsip kehati-hatian dan manajemen risiko bank sebagaimana diatur dalam UU Perbankan dan PBI Manajemen Risiko Bank, sehingga termasuk kedalam Pasal 50 huruf a yang dikecualikan dari Undang-Undang ini. Terhadap permasalahan diatas dilakukan penelitian dengan menggunakan metode yuridis normatif.Hasil penelitian menujukan bahwa kerjasama yang dilakukan para pelaku usaha termasuk ke dalam tying agreement, namun dengan menggunakan pendekatan rule of reason kerjasama tersebut tidak terbukti menyebabkan persaingan usaha tidak sehat dan tidak termasuk ke dalam kegiatan/perjanjian yang bertujuan melaksanakan peraturan perundang-undangan sebagaimana ketentuan Pasal 50 huruf a Undang- Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999.

---

This thesis discussed about the cancellation of decision of KPPU by the Central Jakarta District Court which stated that PT. Bank Rakyat Indonesia in not proven to have violated Article 15 paragraph (2) and 19 a on Law Number 5 of 1999 in coorperation with the partner insurance companies (bancassurance) in supplying product home loan agreement. The judges declared that the agreement made by PT. BRI and its partner insurance companies is the realization of the implementation of the precautionary principle and bank?s risk management as stipulated in the Banking Law and PBI Risk Management Bank, so belongs to Article 50 a that excluded from this law. Based on above problems, do reasearch using normative juridicial method.

Results of research addressing that coorperation that made by the business actors classified into tying agreement, but by using rule of reason such coorperation is not proven to cause unfair competition and is not classified inte the activities/agreements aimed at implementating the legislation as Article 50 a of Law Number. 5 1999."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai praktik tying agreement yang terdapat pada perjanjian kredit bank dalam memasarkan syarat keberadaan produk asuransi. Praktik tying agreement pada perjanjian kredit bank dapat dikatakan terjadi jika pihak bank meniadakan asas kebebasan memilih perusahaan asuransi, sebagaimana lebih lanjut diatur dalam SEOJK No. 32/SEOJK. 05/2016, selain juga diatur pada SEOJK No. 33/SEOJK.03/2016. Hasil penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa meskipun suatu perjanjian kredit bank mempraktikkan tying agreement dalam memasarkan persyaratan keberadaan produk asuransi, penegak hukum, dalam hal ini KPPU ataupun Pengadilan di tingkat Banding dan Kasasi seyogyianya menerapkan pendekatan rule of reason.

---

This thesis discusses the practice of tying agreement contained in bank credit accord in marketing of the requirement of existence of insurance product. The practice of tying agreement on bank credit accord can be said to occur if the bank negates the principle of choice of insurance company, as further stipulated in SEOJK No. 32 SEOJK. 05 2016, as well set on SEOJK No. 33 SEOJK. 03 2016.

The result of this research reveals although the bank credit accord practicing tying agreement in marketing the requirement of the existence of insurance product, law enforcers, which in this case KPPU or Court at appeal level and Cassation should apply the approach of rule of reason. "

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai penerapan hukum persaingan usaha di dalam putusan kasasi dengan nomor putusan 703 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2015, yang adalah putusan tingkat akhir terhadap dugaan adanya praktek anti persaingan yang dilakukan oleh PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia, PT Asuransi Jiwa Bringin Jiwa Sejahtera, dan PT Heksa Eka Life Insurance, terkait kerjasama bancassurance dalam produk Kredit Pemilikan Rumah (KPR) BRI. Adapun putusan ini merupakan putusan yang menguatkan putusan keberatan Nomor 05/KPPU-I/2014, yang berisi pembatalan terhadap putusan KPPU yang menyatakan bahwa kerjasama yang dilakukan oleh PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia, PT Asuransi Jiwa Bringin Jiwa Sejahtera, dan PT Heksa Eka Life Insurance merupakan bentuk tying agreement yang dilarang di dalam Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999. Dalam pewujudanskripsi ini, dilakukan penelitian dengan pendekatan yuridis normatif, untuk membuktikan adanya praktek anti persaingan yang diatur di dalam Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan Pasal 19 huruf a Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999, yang kemudian didapatkan hasil bahwa kegiatan kerjasama tersebut merupakan kerjasama yang dilarang dalam hukum persaingan usaha, sehingga putusan serta pertimbangan yang dicantumkan di dalam putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 703 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2015 merupakan putusan yang adalah kurang tepat apabila dilandaskan oleh Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999.This thesis discusses about the law enforcement of competition law in the Supreme Court's verdict number 703 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2015, which is the final verdict regarding assumption of actions against the competition law, done by PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia, PT Asuransi Jiwa Bringin Jiwa Sejahtera, and PT Heksa Eka Life Insurance, which was about bancassurance cooperation in one of BRI's product, Kredit Pemilikan Rumah (KPR). This verdict strengthened an objection presented in verdict number 05/KPPU-I/2014, which cancelled one of KPPU's verdict about the cooperation of PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia, PT Asuransi Jiwa Bringin Jiwa Sejahtera, and PT Heksa Eka Life Insurance being a tying agreement, which is forbidden in Law Number 5/1999. A research using normative juridicial approach was done to prove the occurence of actions against the competition law, which was regulated in Article 15 (2) and Article 19 (a) of Law Number 5/1999, with the result that the cooperation done between the mentioned subjects was forbidden by competition law, thus proving the Supreme Court's verdict, Number 703 K/Pdt. Sus-KPPU/2015, is incorrect."

"Eksistensi Hak Cipta diakui oleh Hukum Persaingan Usaha baik di Indonesia maupun di Uni Eropa. Namun demikian, penerapan Hukum Persaingan Usaha tidak dikecualikan secara absolut terhadap pelaksanaan Hak Cipta. Hal ini terlihat dari adanya Peraturan Komisi No. 2 tahun 2009, pasal 81, dan pasal 82 European Treaty. Kasus mengenai pembatasan pengecualian penerapan Hukum Persaingan Usaha terhadap pelaksanaan Hak Cipta pernah diputus melalui Putusan KPPU No. 3/KPPU-L/2008 dan European Commission Decision Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft. Dari kedua putusan ini, akan terlihat bagaimana pembatasan pengecualian itu diberlakukan dan perbandingan pembatasan tersebut di Indonesia dan di Uni Eropa.

---

The existence of Copy Rights is acknowledged by the Competition Law whether in Indonesia or in European Union. But, the application of Competition Law is not exempted absolutely from the exercise of Copy Rights. It can be seen from the existence of Commission Regulation number 2 of 2009, article 81, and article 82 European Treaty. The case of the limitation of exemption the exercise of Competition Law on Copy Rights has been decided by KPPU Decision Number 3/KPPU-L/2008 and European Commission Decision Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft. From these two decisions, we can see how the limitation is implemented and the comparison of the limitation in Indonesia and in European Union."

"Tesis ini hendak mengkaji terkait dengan Putusan KPPU No. 31/KPPU-1/2019. Terdapat dua pertimbangan hakim yang menarik untuk dikaji lebih lanjut, yakni hakim membenarkan perjanjian tertutup (tying agreement). Kemudian hakim memilih rule of reason daripada per se illegal. Akan tetapi, penelitian ini akan berfokus hanya pada kajian mengenai tying agreement. Perjanjian antara PT. AHM dengan Main dealer dan Dealer yang memiliki persyaratan bahwa pihak yang ingin mempunyai bengkel AHASS harus bersedia menerima dan membeli barang dan jasa lain dari PT. AHM selain itu terdapat klausula perjanjian potongan harga suku cadang yang diperoleh pemilik bengkel AHASS. Rumusan masalah yang peneliti bahas yaitu apakah tindakan PT AHM melakukan perjanjian tertutup dengan Main Dealer dan Dealer di Indonesia masuk kategori pelanggaran pasal 15 ayat 2 dan 3 berdasarkan UU Persaingan usaha dan apakah pendekatan Rule of Reason yang digunakan dalam putusan KPPU No: 31/KPPU-I/2019 sudah tepat dalam memutus pelanggaran pasal 15 ayat 2 dan 3 UU Persaingan Usaha. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu normatif, sifat penelitian yang digunakan yaitu deskriptif-analitis, jenis data yang digunakan yaitu data primer dan sekunder, analisis data dilakukan secara deskriptif-kualitatif, serta pengambilan kesimpulan dilakukan dengan logika deduktif.

---

This thesis intends to examine the KPPU's Decision No. 31/KPPU-1/2019. There are two interesting judges' considerations for further study, namely the judge justifying a closed agreement, tying agreement. Then the judge chose the rule of reason rather than per se illegal. However, this research will focus only on the study of tying agreement. Agreement between PT. AHM with Main dealers and Dealers who have a requirement that parties who want to have an AHASS workshop must be willing to accept and buy other goods and services from PT. In addition to that, AHM has a clause on the spare parts discount agreement which is obtained by the AHASS workshop owner. The formulation of the problem that the researcher discusses is whether the action of PT AHM in entering into closed agreements with Main Dealers and Dealers in Indonesia is categorized as a violation of Article 15 paragraphs 2 and 3 based on the Business Competition Law and whether the Rule of Reason approach used in KPPU's decision No: 31/KPPU- I/2019 has been right in deciding violations of Article 15 paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Business Competition Law. The research method used is normative, the nature of the research used is descriptive-analytical, the types of data used are primary and secondary data, data analysis is carried out descriptively-qualitatively, and conclusions are drawn using deductive logic."

"Dalam pasal 15 ayat 2 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 bahwa perjanjian berikat (tying agreement) pada dasarnya bersifat per se illegal sehingga apabila dilihat adanya suatu tying agreement maka tanpa dibuktikan lebih lanjut serta dipetimbangan dampak maupun akibatnya maka tying agreement tersebut dikatakan telah melanggar hukum persaingan usaha. Dalam penelitian ini akan dilihat apakah hal tersebut sudah sesuai dengan hukum persaingan usaha melalui studi kasus putusan nomor 01/Pdt/KPPU/2015/PN,Jkt.Utr. Selain itu dalam penelitian ini akan diteliti apakah seseorang yang tidak mendengar/mengalami/melihat suatu peristiwa sendiri (saksi non fakta) dapat dijadikan sebagai alat bukti keterangan saksi (witness testimony) dalam pemeriksaan hukum persaingan usaha.

---

In article 15 paragraph 2 of the Law number. 5 year 1999 that the tying agreement basically are per se illegal so that when viewed the presence of a tying agreement then without further evidenced as well as to consider impact or as a result of such agreement tying the then said to have violated the competition law effort.

In this study it will be seen whether it is in compliance with the law through the business case study competition court decision number 01/Pdt/KPPU/2015/PN. Jkt. Utr. Therefore, in this study examined whether a person who is not an event listen/feel/see directly itself (witness the non facts) can serve as evidence of witnesses to testimony in the examination of competition law effort."

"Salah satu perjanjian yang dilarang karena dapat menimbulkan persaingan tidak sehat adalah tying agreement. Dikarenakan ada tying agreement yang menimbulkan dampak positif, maka tidak seluruh tying agreement otomatis melanggar hukum persaingan usaha. Skripsi ini membahas mengenai tying agreement khususnya dalam Putusan KPPU No. 07/KPPU-I/2013, dimana KPPU menyatakan Perjanjian Sewa Ruangan dan Konsesi Usaha antara PT. Angkasa Pura II dengan tenant-nya termasuk ke dalam tying agreement yang dilarang. Penulis menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan jenis data sekunder berdasarkan penelusuran kepustakaan, ditunjang dengan data primer melalui wawancara. Berdasarkan analisis diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa Perjanjian Sewa Ruangan dan Konsesi Usaha termasuk tying agreement yang dilarang dan bahwa beberapa hal dalam Putusan KPPU No. 07/KPPU-I/2013 belum sesuai dengan hukum persaingan usaha yang berlaku.

---

One of the agreements prohibited in Antitrust Law because it can lead to unfair competition is tying agreement. Because there are tying agreements that have positive impacts, therefore not all tying agreements will automatically violate Antitrust Law. This thesis discusses tying agreement, particularly in the Commission's Decision No. 07/KPPU-I/2013, where the Commission stated that Lease and Business Concession Agreement between PT. Angkasa Pura II with its tenants is a prohibited tying agreement. The author used the method of normative juridical research with secondary data based on literature searches, supported by primary data through interviews. Based on the analysis it was concluded that the Lease and Business Consession Agreement was a prohibited tying agreement and that some parts of the Commission's Decision No. 07/KPPU-I/2013 were not in accordance with the applicable Antitrust Law."

"[ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas tentang dugaan praktek anti persaingan yang dilakukan oleh PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia dengan melekatkan perjanjian Kredit Pemilikan Rumah BRI dengan produk asuransi jiwa dari PT Asuransi Jiwa Bringin Sejahtera dan PT Heksa Eka Life Insurance. Kerja sama ini dianggap dapar membatasi pilihan konsumen dan menciptakan barrier to entry terhadap pelaku usaha lain. Terhadap permasalahan di atas dilakukan peneltian dengan menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kegiatan yang dilakukan oleh ketiga pelaku usaha tergolong ke dalam tying agreement, namun untuk dapat membuktikan bahwa praktek tying agreement melanggar Undang-Undang No.5 Tahun 1999, maka perlu dilakukannya pembuktian pasal 15 ayat (2) dan pasal 19 huruf (a) dengan menggunakan pendekatan rule of reason dan melihat dampak yang ditimbulkan bagi konsumen dan perusahaan lain.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses about presumption of anti-competition practices commited by PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia by embedding home loan agreement with life insurance products of PT Asuransi Jiwa Bringin Sejahtera and PT Heksa Eka Life Insurace. This cooperation can limiting consumer choice and create barrier to entry for other business actors. Upon these problems, research has been done in the juridical-normative approach. The result showed that the activities commited by this three business actors classified into tying agreement, but to prove that the practice of tying agreements breached on Law Number 5 Of 1999, it is necessary to prove Article 15 paragraph (2) and Article 19 paragraph (a) using the rule of reason approach and the impact for consumers and other companies;This thesis discusses about presumption of anti-competition practices commited by PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia by embedding home loan agreement with life insurance products of PT Asuransi Jiwa Bringin Sejahtera and PT Heksa Eka Life Insurace. This cooperation can limiting consumer choice and create barrier to entry for other business actors. Upon these problems, research has been done in the juridical-normative approach. The result showed that the activities commited by this three business actors classified into tying agreement, but to prove that the practice of tying agreements breached on Law Number 5 Of 1999, it is necessary to prove Article 15 paragraph (2) and Article 19 paragraph (a) using the rule of reason approach and the impact for consumers and other companies;This thesis discusses about presumption of anti-competition practices commited by PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia by embedding home loan agreement with life insurance products of PT Asuransi Jiwa Bringin Sejahtera and PT Heksa Eka Life Insurace. This cooperation can limiting consumer choice and create barrier to entry for other business actors. Upon these problems, research has been done in the juridical-normative approach. The result showed that the activities commited by this three business actors classified into tying agreement, but to prove that the practice of tying agreements breached on Law Number 5 Of 1999, it is necessary to prove Article 15 paragraph (2) and Article 19 paragraph (a) using the rule of reason approach and the impact for consumers and other companies;This thesis discusses about presumption of anti-competition practices commited by PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia by embedding home loan agreement with life insurance products of PT Asuransi Jiwa Bringin Sejahtera and PT Heksa Eka Life Insurace. This cooperation can limiting consumer choice and create barrier to entry for other business actors. Upon these problems, research has been done in the juridical-normative approach. The result showed that the activities commited by this three business actors classified into tying agreement, but to prove that the practice of tying agreements breached on Law Number 5 Of 1999, it is necessary to prove Article 15 paragraph (2) and Article 19 paragraph (a) using the rule of reason approach and the impact for consumers and other companies, This thesis discusses about presumption of anti-competition practices commited by PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia by embedding home loan agreement with life insurance products of PT Asuransi Jiwa Bringin Sejahtera and PT Heksa Eka Life Insurace. This cooperation can limiting consumer choice and create barrier to entry for other business actors. Upon these problems, research has been done in the juridical-normative approach. The result showed that the activities commited by this three business actors classified into tying agreement, but to prove that the practice of tying agreements breached on Law Number 5 Of 1999, it is necessary to prove Article 15 paragraph (2) and Article 19 paragraph (a) using the rule of reason approach and the impact for consumers and other companies]"

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai penerapan pendekatan rule of reason dan state action doctrine dalam hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia dengan menggunakan studi kasus Putusan KPPU No. 09/KPPU-L/2016 mengenai praktek monopoli yang dilakukan oleh Perusahaan Gas Negara dan Putusan KPPU No. 09/KPPU-I/2018 mengenai dugaan kartel garam industri yang dilakukan oleh 7 perusahaan importir garam pada tahun 2015. Adapun metode penelitian yang diguanakan adalah pendekatan yuridis-normatif dengan menggunakan studi kasus serta menggunakan teori-teori, konsep-konsep, asas-asas hukum, serta peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Kesimpulan yang didapat adalah: 1) PGN hanya dapat melaksanakan kegiatan monopoli atau pemusatan kegaitan yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak apabila diatur oleh UU; 2) Rule of reason dalam kasus kartel garam sudah diterapkan dengan baik, karena KPPU telah melakukan analisis terhadap dampak terjadinya kartel kepada pasar dan konsumen. Namun dalam kasus monopoli oleh PGN, penerapan rule of reason tidak diterapkan secara maksimal. Karena penenentuan harga jual yang dilakukan PGN merugikan konsumen serta tidak mempertimbangkan kemampuan daya beli konsumen; dan 3) Penerapan state action doctrine dalam kasus monopoli oleh PGN belum diterapkan secara maksimal, karena PGN tidak memiliki cukup dasar hukum untuk dapat dikecualikan dari UU No. 5 Tahun 1999.

---

This thesis discusses the implementation of the rule of reason approach and the state action doctrine in Competition Law in Indonesia, by using case studies of KPPU Decision No. 09/KPPU-L/2016 concerning monopoly practices which held by the State Gas Company (PT. PGN) and KPPU Decision No. 09/KPPU-I/2018 regarding the alleged industrial salt cartel conducted by seven salt importing companies in 2015. The applied research method for this thesis was a juridical-normative approach using case studies, theories, concepts, the principles of law, and the applicable laws and its regulations. The conclusions obtained are: 1.) PGN can only carry out monopolistic activities or concentration of activities controlling the lives of many people if regulated by the law; 2.) KPPU has implemented Rule of Reason in the salt cartel cases, by analyzing the impact of the cartel on the market and consumers. However, in the case of monopoly by PGN, the application of the rule of reason was not well-implemented, since the determination of the selling price conducted by PGN is detrimental to consumers and did not take into account the purchasing power of consumers; and 3.) The application of the state action doctrine in the monopoly case by PGN has not been well-implemented as well, as PGN does not have a sufficient legal basis to be exempted from Law No. 5 of 1999."

"Seiring dengan berkembang pesatnya perekonomian global, akuisisi menjadi salah satu langkah yang banyak dilakukan oleh pelaku usaha untuk mengembangkan usahanya. Penelitian ini membahas pengaturan akuisisi dalam hukum persaingan usaha Indonesia dan Singapura, serta membahas pengaturan PP No. 57 Tahun 2010 yang dinilai sudah tidak sejalan dengan keadaan yang ada saat ini. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan membandingkan perundang-undangan yang terkait di Singapura. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ini, dapat disimpulkan bahwa hingga saat ini pengaturan akuisisi dalam hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia masih tidak efektif dan menimbulkan beberapa permasalahan dalam dunia usaha.

---

As global economic growth rapidly develops, acquisition has become a common thing for entrepreneurs who seek to develop their business. This research aims to give detailed explanations about the regulations of acquisition in Competition Law in Indonesia and Singapore, while also explaining PP No. 57 Tahun 2010, which is considered not compatible anymore in the current circumstances. This research uses the juridical normative method, by comparing the regulations which are applied in Singapore. Based on this research, it can be concluded that the regulations of acquisition in Competition Law of Indonesia are still ineffective and have caused several problems in the business world.

"