Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"pt. 1. Antitrust considerations from the U.S. perspective -- pt. 2. Competition law in the European Union -- pt. 3. Competition law in other countries -- Appendices."

"Penanganan perkara kartel merupakan bagian dari penegakan hukum persaingan usaha. Di Indonesia, penanganan perkara kartel yang dilakukan oleh KPPU memiliki banyak permasalahan terutama berkenaan dengan pembuktian kartel yang masih sulit dan kewenangan KPPU sebagai penegak hukum persaingan usaha. Sedangkan negara lain seperti Amerika Serikat telah melakukan penanganan perkara kartel dengan lebih baik. Untuk itu, penelitian ini akan membahas perbandingan penanganan perkara kartel di Indonesia dengan Amerika Serikat. Melalui perbandingan tersebut, penulis mengungkapkan berbagai hal dalam penanganan perkara kartel di Amerika Serikat yang dapat diaplikasikan di Indonesia antara lain penggunaan circumstantial evidence, penerapan program leniency, dan kewenangan upaya paksa oleh lembaga penegak hukum persaingan usaha.

---

The handling of cartel case is part of the enforcement of competition law. In Indonesia, the handling of cartel cases which is conducted by the KPPU has several problems, especially in connection with the difficulty of proving of cartel and the authority of the KPPU as a competition law enforcement agency. Whereas, other countries such as the United States has had the handling of cartel cases better. Therefore, this research will discuss the comparison of the handling of cartel case in Indonesia and the United States. Through this comparison, the authors explain several things from the handling of cartel case in United States that can be applied in Indonesia, among others, the use of circumstantial evidence, the application of leniency programs, and the authority of competition law enforcement agencies to do forceful measures."

"George Tompkins, a leading authority with world wide recognition on the interpretation and application of international private air law agreements, and himself among the drafters of MC99, here lays out the fruit of his vast personal experience in handling cases and controversies in the Courts of the United States involving the application of the liability rules of the Warsaw Convention and now MC99. The resulting publication is an essential legal guide for determining and resolving claims governed by one or more of the international law instruments that comprise the Warsaw Liability System, which consists of the 1929 Warsaw Convention, the 1955 Hague Protocol, the 1961 Guadalajara Convention, the 1975 Montreal Protocol No. 4 and various intercarrier agreements (applicable only to claims involving passenger death or bodily injury governed by the Warsaw Convention) all now superseded and governed by MC99."

"Kartel dipersepsikan sebagai bentuk paling berbahaya dari tindakan anti persaingan dan di beberapa yurisdiksi menerima penanganan dari perspektif hukum pidana. Sifat kerahasiaan kartel menjadi hambatan terbesar bagi otoritas persaingan usaha untuk membuktikan keberadaan kartel, hal mana juga dialami oleh Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia. Untuk alasan ini, sejumlah besar yurisdiksi telah mengadopsi leniency program untuk mengungkapkan keberadaan kartel.Tesis ini membahas pengaturan dan implementasi leniency program dalam Antitrust Law di Amerika Serikat dan Antimonopoly Law di Jepang serta kemungkinan penerapannya dalam hukum persaingan di Indonesia. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif yang menggunakan metode pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan perbandingan. Hasil penelitian menyarankan untuk menerapkan leniency program melalui amandemen Undang- Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 dan sejalan dengan itu meningkatkan sanksi denda administratif yang diterapkan KPPU terhadap pelaku kartel.

---

Cartels are perceived as the most dangerous form of anti-competitive conduct and in some jurisdiction subjected to the criminal penalty regime. The confidential nature of cartel has been the biggest obstacle in proving their existence, which is also experienced by the Business Competition Supervisory Commission in Indonesia. Leniency programs uncover conspiracies that would otherwise go undetected and for this reasons numerous jurisdictions have adopted leniency program within their competition law regime. The study discussed the regulation of leniency program and its implementation both in the United States Antitrust Law and in Japan Antimonopoly Law. The study also addressed the possibility of leniency program? application in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative research method which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. The result suggest to implement leniency program in Indonesia through the amendment of Law No. 5 of 1999 and to increase the administrative fines imposed by the Commission against perpetrators of cartels."

"Tindakan anti persaingan usaha seringkali menimbulkan kerugian bagi beberapa pihak, seperti konsumen atau pesaing usaha. Hal tersebut mengakibatkan timbulnya hak atas ganti kerugian. Namun, di Indonesia belum banyak pihak yang menyadari bahwa dalam hukum persaingan usaha terdapat mekanisme private enforcement untuk memperoleh ganti rugi, serta belum ada ketentuan yang mendorong penggunaan private enforcement. Hal tersebut sangat disayangkan karena di Amerika Serikat mekanisme private enforcement menjadi alat untuk perolehan ganti rugi yang paling populer dengan berbagai keuntungan serta kemudahan yang ditawarkan. Di sisi lain, Uni Eropa yang juga memberlakukan ketentuan perihal private enforcement ditemukan banyak kendala dan hambatan dalam penerapannya, sehingga penggunaan public enforcement tetap menjadi pemain utama dalam penerapan hukum persaingan usaha. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif yang menggunakan analisa kualitatif terhadap penerapan mekanisme private enforcement dalam hukum penegakan usaha di Amerika Serikat dan Uni Eropa. Ketentuan serta penerapan di Amerika Serikat akan dijadikan sebagai bahan rujukan dalam penerapan private enforcement di Indonesia.

---

Several antitrust infringements will harm several parties, for example consumers or competitors. It will consequently give the rights to get compensation. However, only a few people who aware of this rights and also there is no supportive regulations for individual to do these private actions. This is unfortunate because United States of America USA has private enforcement mechanism, which is really popular in order to obtain competitions. USA also gives many advantages and convenience through this mechanism. On the other hand, European Union EU has also imposed the provision on private enforcement. In comparison of implementation in USA and EU, EU has several obstacles. Therefore, public enforcement still takes major parts in enforce EU antitrust law. This research is a normative and legal research with the using of qualitative analysis of regulations and applications of private enforcement in both jurisdictions. In the end, it will be references in the application of private enforcement in Indonesia. "