Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Although there are many texts on the law of evidence, surprisingly few are devoted specifically to the comparative and international aspects of the subject. The traditional view that the law of evidence belongs within the common law tradition has obscured the reality that a genuinely cosmopolitan law of evidence is being developed in criminal cases across the common law and civil law traditions. By considering the extent to which a coherent body of common evidentiary standards is being developed in both domestic and international jurisprudence, John Jackson and Sarah Summers chart this development with particular reference to the jurisprudence on the right to a fair trial that has emerged from the European Court of Human Rights and to the attempts in the new international criminal tribunals to fashion agreed approaches towards the regulation of evidence."

"Skripsi ini membahas tentang metode pembuktian yang digunakan KPPU dalam melakukan pembuktian terhadap praktik kartel yang dilakukan oleh pelaku usaha dengan pelaku usaha pesaing dalam suatu pasar yang sama. Metode pembuktian yang digunakan KPPU terdiri dari metode pembuktian secara langsung (direct evidence) dan pembuktian berdasarkan keadaan (circumstansial evidence). Kedua metode pembuktian tersebut merupakan metode pembuktian yang telah diterapkan dinegara-negara maju seperti Amerika Serikat dan Uni Eropa. Pembuktian secara langsung (direct evidence) dan pembuktian berdasarkan keadaan (circumstansial evidence) tidak hanya digunakan dalam praktek tetapi juga diatur dalam UU No. 5 Tahun 1999. Metode pembuktian langsung (direct evidence) dan metode pembuktian berdasarkan keadaan (circumstansial evidence) digunakan KPPU dalam proses pembuktian praktik kartel secara berbeda-beda berdasarkan kebutuhan pembuktian tiap-tiap kasus. Metodologi yang digunakan dalam penulisan ini adalah yuridis normatif yang bersifat kualitatif, melalui studi kepustakaan. Analisis data yang dilakukan dalam penulisan ini menggunakan metode deskriptif dan bersifat kualitatif.

---

This thesis discusses about the method of proof used in making evidentiary KPPU against cartel practices undertaken by entrepreneurs with business competitors in a market the same. KPPU used method of proof consists of direct method of proof (direct evidence) and evidence based on the circumstances (circumstansial evidence). The second method of proof is a proof method that has been adopted country-developed countries like the United States and the European Union. Prove directly (direct evidence) and evidence based on the circumstances (circumstansial evidence) is not only used in practice but also stipulated in Law No. 5 Year 1999. Direct proof method (direct evidence) and the method of proof based on the circumstances (circumstansial evidence) used in the process of proving KPPU cartel practices in different ways based on the evidentiary requirements of each case. The methodology used in this paper is normative juridical qualitatively, through literature study. Data analysis within this study uses descriptive and qualitative methods."

"Using the "Market test" methodology, we examine the employer discrimination theory. We use a set of data on Japanese listed firms which has detailed employee information..."

"Dalam pengaturan kartel di Indonesia, pendekatan yang digunakan adalah pendekatan Rule of Reason, dengan kata lain harus ada proses pembuktian yang menunjukkan bahwa memang telah terjadi praktek kartel diantara para pelaku usaha. Diseluruh negara di dunia yang memberlakukan Hukum Persaingan Usaha, praktek kartel merupakan pelanggaran yang sangat sulit untuk dibuktikan. Hal ini dikarenakan kasus kartel jarang atau tidak memiliki bukti langsung (direct evidence/hard evidence), mengingat pada umumya perjanjian kartel tidak dibuat berdasarkan perjanjian tertulis. Dikarenakan kesulitan tersebut, munculnya praktek penggunaan indirect evidence sebagai alat bukti pun banyak dilakukan di berbagai negara, didasari pertimbangan bahwa memang sulit memperoleh bukti langsung dari praktek kartel. Pada praktiknya, yang kerap digunakan KPPU sebagai indirect evidence adalah hasil analisis terhadap hasil pengolahan data yang mencerminkan terjadinya supernormal profit yang terjadi bukan karena peningkatan efisiensi dan produktivitas perusahaan. Jika melihat putusan KPPU atas kasus dugaan kartel fuel surcharge (komponen tarif baru yang ditujukan untuk menutup biaya yang diakibatkan oleh kenaikan harga avtur sebagai imbas dari kenaikan harga minyak dunia) oleh sembilan maskapai penerbangan di Indonesia, maka kasus ini diputus didasarkan pada bukti tidak langsung (indirect evidence). Dalam putusannya Majelis KPPU menggunakan uji korelasi dan homogeneity variance test, yang sampai pada kesimpulan bahwa pergerakan fuel surcharge menunjukkan adanya trend yang sama diantara para terlapor (maskapai penerbangan). KPPU menilai sejak diberlakukan komponen tarif baru ini, fuel surcharge penerbangan mengalami kenaikan yang signifikan, dan tetap diberlakukan meskipun harga minyak dunia (avtur) mengalami penurunan yang signifikan. Dari apa yang terdapat dalam Peraturan KPPU, maka indirect evidence termasuk dalam kategori bukti petunjuk. Namun dalam Peraturan KPPU tersebut tidak dijelaskan lebih lanjut apa saja yang termasuk dalam alat bukti petunjuk, hanya saja disebutkan bahwa petunjuk merupakan pengetahuan Majelis Komisi yang olehnya diketahui dan diyakini kebenarannya.

---

In analyzing the cartel, there are two kinds of business competition law approach is used, i.e. Per Se Illegal and Rule of Reason. In the cartel arrangements in Indonesia, the approach used is Rule of Reason, in other words there should be a process of evidence showing that indeed there has been a cartel practices among business actors. Around country in the world imposing a Business Competition Law, the cartel practice is a violation that is very difficult to prove. It because of cartel cases rarely or do not have direct evidence which is not generally made under a written agreement. Due to these difficulties, the emergence of using practice of indirect evidence as a proof was mostly done in many countries, based on the consideration it was difficult to obtain direct evidence. In practice, that is often used by the Business Competition Supervisory Commission as indirect evidence is the result of an analysis of data processing reflecting the occurrence of supernormal profits which is not due to the increased efficiency and productivity of the company. In its decision in case of alleged cartel fuel surcharge (new tariff component intended to cover expenses as the impact of the increased aviation fuel price affected by the rising world oil prices) by nine airlines in Indonesia, commission decided it based on indirect evidence (indirect evidence). In its decision the Commission used correlation and variance homogeneity test, which brought to the conclusion that the movement of fuel surcharge showed the same trend among the reported (airlines). The Commission considered since enacted the new tariff components, the fuel surcharge flights experienced a significant increase, and remain in place despite world oil prices (aviation fuel) has decreased significantly. From what is contained in the Commission's Regulations, indirect evidence is categorized as clue proof. In the Regulation itself is not explained further what is included in the clue proof, it's just mentioned that the clue is the knowledge by which the Commission is known and believed the truth."