Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"This article examines the state of play of the relations between the European Union and Indonesia.It proposes a review of the progress achieved since the publication in 2000 of the communication from the European Comission that is aimed at strengthening the relations between Indonesia and The European Union. It underlines that both the European Union and Indonesia have become stronger players in the international and regional arena. It also finds that the EU-Indonesia relations have intensified,diversified and given new perspectives for stronger EU-Indonesia partnership."

"Constitutionally the institution which has an authority to settle dispute between institutions is constitutional court. However, in the dispute between Judicial Comission and Supreme Court, the constitutionional court is not able to handle the case besause there is an exception of article 65 constitutional court."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai putusan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha tentang proses pemilihan mitra kerja atau beauty contest. Para Terlapor, yakni PT Pertamina, PT Medco Energi Internasional, dan PT Medco E&P Tomori Sulawesi melakukan proses beauty contest atau suatu proses pemilihan mitra kerja untuk menjalankan proyek gas Blok Donggi-Senoro secara bersama-sama. Mereka memilih dan menunjuk Mitsubishi Corporation dalam proses pemilihan mitra tersebut. Namun menurut KPPU, perkara ini merupakan salah satu bentuk persaingan usaha yang tidak sehat, karena PT Pertamina, PT Medco Energi Internasional dan PT Medco E&P Tomori Sulawesi dinilai telah melakukan tindakan persekongkolan tender yang merugikan peserta lainnya. Dalam memutus perkara ini, KPPU menjatuhkan hukuman kepada mereka dengan ketentuan pasal 22 dan 23 Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999. Skripsi yang dibuat dengan metodepenelitian yuridis normatif ini menyimpulkan bahwa KPPU tidak tepat dalam memutus bersalah para terlapor dengan ketentuan mengenai tender dalam Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999 tersebut, mengingat ketentuan tender tersebut tidaklah mengatur mengenai proses pemilihan mitra kerja sebagaimana yang dilakukan oleh para terlapor.

---

This thesis discusses about the decision of The Comission for The Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU) about the process of selecting partners or beauty contest. The Parties, PT Pertamina, PT Medco Energi Internasional, and PT Medco E & P Tomori Sulawesi did beauty contest process or a process of selecting project partners to run the gas project of Block Donggi-Senoro together. They select and appoint the Mitsubishi Corporation in this partner selection process. But according to the Commission, this case is one form of unfair business competition, because of PT Pertamina, PT Medco Energi Internasional and PT Medco E & P Tomori Sulawesi have been regarded as doing tender conspiracy which harm the other participants. In deciding this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of articles 22 and 23 of Act No. 5, 1999 about Competition Law. This thesis prepared by the method of juridical normative study concludes that the Commission is not accurate in deciding the guilt reported to the provisions of the tender in Act No. 5 of 1999, considering the provisions of the tender is not regulating the process of selecting partners as what the parties done."

"Skripsi ini membahas dua permasalahan utama. Pertama, mengenai perbandingan wewenang yang dimiliki Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha KPPU , Badan Kartel Jerman Bundeskartellamt dan Japan Fair Trade Commission JFTC dalam rangka menyelesaikan kasus kartel berdasarkan praktek dan undang-undang yang berlaku di masing-masing negara, lalu skripsi ini membahas tentang wewenang yang dibutuhkan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha KPPU untuk menangani kasus kartel di Indonesia didasarkan pada wewenang yang dimiliki Badan Kartel Jerman Bundeskartellamt dan Japan Fair Trade Commission JFTC . Penelitian dilakukan dengan metode yuridis normatif, tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk memberikan perbandingan wewenang yang dimiliki masing-masing badan dalam penyelesaian perkara kartel di berbagai negara, yang dimaksudkan untuk memberikan gambaran atau pilihan penyelesaian perkara kartel yang sesuai dan dapat membawa KPPU bekerja lebih baik di masa datang. Penyelesaian perkara persaingan usaha dibebankan kepada Badan Kartel Jerman Bunderkartellamt ; Japan Fair Trade Commission JFTC ; dan Komisi Perngawas Persaingan Usaha KPPU . Terdapat perbedaan peranan antara tiap komisi dalam penyelesaian perkara. Perbedaan tersebut dapat ditemukan dalam tata cara penyelesaian perkara, perbedaan kewenangan dan tugas pada tiap-tiap komisi, perbedaan dalam penggunaan pembuktian dalam suatu kasus, program-program yang telah dilaksanakan dan sebagainya. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa KPPU sebagai organ penegak Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat masih banyak kekurangan dalam menjalankan peranannya. Kekurangan tersebut disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor, diantaranya lemahnya wewenang KPPU dalam melakukan upaya paksa seperti penggeledahan, penyitaan dan upaya paksa terhadap saksi.

---

This thesis discusses two main issues. First, it compares about the authotity of Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha KPPU in Indonesia, the German Cartel Agency Bundeskartellamt and the Japan Fair Trade Commission JFTC in order to resolve the cartel cases based on practice and prevail regulation in each country. Second, it discusses about the Privileges that has been required by Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha KPPU in order to handle cartel cases in Indonesia, based on the authority that has been ownded by the the Cartel Agency of Germany Bundeskartellamt and the Japan Fair Trade Commission JFTC . The research was conducted by normative method. The purpose of this research was to provide a problem solving in cartel disputes by doing the comparision between all of those respective authorities in each countries and help the Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha in oder to work better in the future. The completion regarding to business competition cases has been conducted by the Bunderkartellamt Japan Fair Trade Commission JFTC and Komisi Perngawas Persaingan Usaha KPPU . There are differences between the role of each commission in dispute settlement. The differences can be found in the procedures for settling disputes, differences of authority and tasks on each commission, the difference in the use of evidence in a particular case, the programs that have been implemented and many more. The researched concluded that KPPU as a representative organ in Indonesia subject to the rule of Law No. 5 Year 1999 concerning the Ban on Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition is having many shortcomings in performing its role. These condition is caused by several factors, including the lack of authority of the Commission in undertaking forceful measures such as search, seizure and forceful measures against the witness. "