Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
[Tesis ini mengkaji perjanjian franchise PT. X terhadap penerapan pasal 50 huruf (b) undang-undang nomer 5 tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha tidak Sehat. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normative kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa penerapan pasal 50 huruf (b) tidak dapat diterapkan secara mutlak dan perlu adanya tindakan yang dilakukan oleh Komisi Pengawas Persaingan terhadap perjanjian waralaba yang melanggar ketentuan pasal 50 huruf (b) undang-undang nomor 5 tahun 1999. ......This thesis examines the franchise agreement PT. X to the application of Article 50 (b) Law No. 5 Year 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. This study is a qualitative normative legal research. The results of this study indicate that the application of Article 50 (b) can not be applied absolutely, and there needs to be action taken by the Commission against the franchise agreement that violates the provisions of Article 50 (b) Act No. 5 of 1999.;This thesis examines the franchise agreement PT. X to the application of Article 50 (b) Law No. 5 Year 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. This study is a qualitative normative legal research. The results of this study indicate that the application of Article 50 (b) can not be applied absolutely, and there needs to be action taken by the Commission against the franchise agreement that violates the provisions of Article 50 (b) Act No. 5 of 1999., This thesis examines the franchise agreement PT. X to the application of Article 50 (b) Law No. 5 Year 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. This study is a qualitative normative legal research. The results of this study indicate that the application of Article 50 (b) can not be applied absolutely, and there needs to be action taken by the Commission against the franchise agreement that violates the provisions of Article 50 (b) Act No. 5 of 1999.]

Abstrak :
PT. Perusahaan Gas Negara PGN pada periode Agustus sampai November 2015 menetapkan harga jual gas bumi untuk pengguna umum yang didistribusikan melalui pipa. Berkaitan dengan hal tersebut, timbul permasalahan dengan adanya Putusan KPPU Perkara Nomor 09/KPPU-L/2016, atas penentuan harga yang dilakukan PGN, PGN dinyatakan melakukan praktik monopoli. Putusan KPPU tersebut dibatalkan oleh Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat, melalui Putusan Nomor 02/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt. Dengan adanya kedua putusan tersebut, telah dilakukan penelitian yang bertujuan untuk menganalisa ketentuan mengenai pengecualian terhadap praktik monopoli yang dilakukan oleh Badan Usaha Milik Negara BUMN dan menganalisa penentuan harga gas bumi yang dilakukan PGN dengan ketentuan pengecualian berdasarkan Pasal 50 huruf a Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan kasus dan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan yang dilakukan melalui studi kepustakaan dengan studi dokumen atas bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Hasil penelitian dan pembahasan menunjukan bahwa terdapat pengecualian terhadap BUMN yang melakukan praktik monopoli dengan syarat kegiatan yang dilakukan bertujuan untuk melaksanakan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, dan penentuan harga gas bumi yang dilakukan PGN sebagai BUMN adalah bertujuan untuk melaksanakan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, sehingga merupakan kegiatan yang dikecualikan oleh Pasal 50 huruf a Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. ......PT. Perusahaan Gas Negara PGN in the period August to November 2015 set the selling price of natural gas for general users that distributed through pipes. On the matter of issues that arises from KPPU Decision No. 09 KPPU L 2016 on price determination by PGN, stated that PGN has conducted monopolistic practice. KPPU Decision was canceled through the Decision No. 02 Pdt.Sus KPPU 2017 PN.Jkt.Brt. With that two decisions, has done the research that aimed to analyse the provisions of exceptions to monopolistic practice by State owned enterprises BUMN and analysis the price determination of natural gas by PGN with exceptions under Article 50 sub article A of Law Number 5 of 1999. This study was a normative legal study performed with case approach and statue approach through the literary study by document study on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Research result and discussion show that there are exception to monopolistic practice by BUMN with condition the actions with the intention to implement the existing law, and price determination by PGN as a BUMN is with the intention to implement the existing law, so that action is excluded by Article 50 sub article A of Law Number 5 of 1999.