Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Skripsi ini membahas mengenai persekongkolan tender yang dapat menyebabkan persaingan usaha tidak sehat terjadi. Mengambil kasus tender penanganan jalan dan jembatan Kabupaten Bima, Nusa Tenggara Barat Tahun Anggaran 2009 dimana telah diputus bersalah oleh Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) tetapi diputuskan tidak bersalah oleh Mahkamah Agung (MA). Untuk membahas permasalahan ini, menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan analisis yuridis-normatif. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah analisis dari Putusan KPPU No. 34/KPPU-L/2009 dan Putusan MA No. 38 K/Pdt.Sus/2012 dalam memutus perkara Tender Penanganan Jalan dan Jembatan Kabupaten Bima Bidang Bina Marga Dinas Pekerjaan Umum Kabupaten Bima Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Barat Tahun Anggaran 2009 bahwa KPPU dan MA pun masih adanya kekurangan dalam memutuskan perkara ini.

---

This thesis discusses the bid rigging which can lead to unfair competition case. Taking the case of roads and bridges tender handling Bima district, West Nusa Tenggara Fiscal Year 2009 which had been found guilty by KPPU but was found not guilty by the Supreme Court (MA). Normative study and legal-normative juridical analysis will be used to address this issue. The results of this study is an analysis of the Commission's Decision No. 34/KPPU-L/2009 and MA No 38 K/Pdt.Sus/2012 in deciding the case Tender Management Roads and Bridges Sector Bima Highways Department of Public Works Bima district, West Nusa Tenggara Fiscal Year 2009 that the Commission and the MA is still wrong in deciding this case.

Abstrak :
Skripsi ini membahas mengenai dua hal, pertama adalah pembahasan mengenai.analisa kedudukan panitia tender dalam praktek persekongkolan tender di Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah ditinjau dari Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 dan Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001. Kedua, adalah pembahasan mengenai hubungan antara persekongkolan tender vertikal dengan penegakan hukum tindak pidana korupsi di Indonesia ditinjau dari Undang- Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 Jo. Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 mengenai tindak pidana korupsi. Analisa kedudukan panitia tender ini dilakukan dengan menganalisa putusan-putusan perkara mahkamah agung yang semuanya adalah mengenai persekongkolan tender vertikal dan persekongkolan tender gabungan antara vertikal dan horizontal. Analisa dilakukan dengan membandingkan fakta-fakta yang ada dengan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan yang berlaku di Indonesia serta teori-teori dari para ahli hukum mengenai masalah yang bersangkutan. Penulis mencoba menarik batas-batas yang jelas antara kewenangan KPPU dan kewenangan KPK dalam menangani praktek persekongkolan tender, dengan menghubungkan unsur-unsur antara praktek persekongkolan tender dengan praktek persaingan usaha yang tidak sehat dan juga menghubngkan unsur-unsur praktek persekongkolan tender dengan tindak pidana korupsi. ......This mini-thesis discusses about two things, first is the position of tender committee on tender conspiracy in practice in terms of Act No. 5 of 1999 and Law No. 20 of 2001. Secondly, the discussion of the relationship between vertical tender conspiracy by law enforcement corruption cases in Indonesia in terms of Act No. 20 of 2001 Jo. Law Number 31 Year 1999 regarding corruption. Analysis of the position of the tender committee is done by analyzing the decisions of the supreme court case that everything is on tender conspiracy and conspiracy tender vertical joint between the vertical and horizontal. The analyzes were performed by comparing the facts that there is a Regulatory Legislation in force in Indonesia as well as the theories of legal experts on the matter in question. The author tried to draw clear boundaries between the authority of the Commission and the authority of the Commission in dealing with the practice of tender conspiracy, with the connecting elements between the tender conspiracy practice with the practice of unhealthy business competition and also menghubngkan elements of the tender conspiracy practice of corruption.

Abstrak :
This article explains the main competition rules in European Community in general. The basic norm of competition rule in European Community (EC) is determined in article 3 (g) EC Treaty. Article 3 (g) provide that "the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted". To ensure workable competition in EC were set out in article 81 and 82 EC Treaty the Competition rule. Article 81 (1) prohibits as incompatible with common market, collusion between undertakings that may affect trade member states and has the object or effect of restricting competition within the common market. But not all agreements that perceptibly restrict competition and may effect inter-state trade are prohibited. Some forms of collaboration restrictive of competition may have beneficial effects and are capable exemption by the Commission. By virtue of article 81 (3) the prohibition in article 81 (1) may be declared inapplicable to any agreements or category of agreements provided that they have certain characteristics. This article will elaborate the prohibition of article 81 (1) and the exemption of article 81 (3) and as well the abuse of dominant position of article 82 EC Treaty.