Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[Skripsi ini membahas mengenai putusan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usahatentang kewajiban penggunaan alat bongkar muat Gantry Luffing Crane. Dalamrangka meningkatkan efisiensi dan produktivitas bongkar muat di lingkunganPelabuhan Tanjung Priok, Para terlapor yakni PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II dan PTMulti Terminal Indonesia mengeluarkan surat pemberitahuan pemakaian alatbongkar muat Gantry Luffing Crane secara bersama-sama di Dermaga 101, 101utara, 102, 114 dan 115 bagi para pengguna jasa pelabuhan. Tindakan tersebutdirasa KPPU merupakan salah satu bentuk persaingan yang tidak sehat karena PTPelabuhan Indonesia II dan PT Multi Terminal Indonesia dinilai telah melakukantying agreement dan praktik monopoli yang merugikan pengguna jasa pelabuhan.Dalam memutus perkara ini, KPPU menjatuhkan hukuman kepada mereka denganketentuan pasal 15 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Skripsi yangdibuat dengan metode yuridis normatif ini meyimpulkan bahwa KPPU tidak tepatdalam memutus bersalah para terlapor dengan ketentuan mengenai tyingagreement dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, mengingat suratpemberitahuan bukanlah termasuk dalam pengertian perjanjian.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement., This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.]"

"Penelitian ini mengkaji penerapan Pasal 50 huruf a Undang-undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 Tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat terhadap praktek monopoli yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan yang ditunjuk oleh negara. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian deskriptif dengan menggunakan studi kasus Monopoli Pengelolaan Air Bersih di Pulau Batam yang dilakukan oleh PT Adhya Tirta Batam (Perkara Nomor 11/KPPU-L/2008). Dalam penelitian ini penulis melakukan analisis yang menyatakan hak monopoli yang dimiliki oleh PT Adhya Tirta Batam bukan merupakan pengecualian sebagaimana yang diatur pada Pasal 50 huruf a Undang-undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Pada studi kasus yang dianalisis dalam penelitian ini, terdapat bukti dampak kerugian yang ditanggung oleh masyarakat akibat Kebijakan Penghentian Sambungan Air yang dilakukan oleh PT Adhya Tirta Batam, tetapi kerugian tersebut tidak terjadi karena adanya perilaku monopoli. Penghentian sambungan air dilakukan karena adanya keterbatasan kapasitas produksi dan distribusi air bersih, bukan karena untuk pembatasan output yang bertujuan untuk menaikkan harga.This study examine implementation of article 50 (a) Law Number 5 Year 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices And Unfair Business Competition toward monopolistic practices which is done by a company appointed by state. This study use descriptive method by using case study of Monopoly of Water Treatment in Batam Island by PT Adhya Tirta Batam (Case Number 11/KPPU-L/2008). Based on the analysis, this study declare that PT Adhya Tirta Batam?s monopoly right was not exempted from implementation of Article 50 (a) Law Number 5 1999. In this case study, there was evidence of society loss as impact of Ceasing Water Connection Policy by PT Adhya Tirta Batam, but that loss was not occur cause of monopoly practice. Ceasing water connection which is done by PT Adhya Tirta Batam because there was lack of production and distribution capacity, not intended to limit output in order to increasing the price."

"Monopoli tidak otomatis dilarang dalam perspektif persaingan usaha. Hal ini disebabkan pembuktian praktek monopoli menganut prinsip rule of reason. Benarkah praktek monopoli tersebut menimbulkan pencegahan, pembatasan, dan pengurangan persaingan, serta eksploitasi konsumen? Apakah praktek monopoli menyebabkan menyebabkan inefisiensi ekonomi, terciptanya harga yang tidak wajar, eksploitasi konsumen dari sisi non-harga, ekses profit hanya dapat dinikmati monopolis, terciptanya hambatan masuk, dan lain-lain. Selain itu, perlu dianalisa penyebab perilaku monopoli dari pemegang posisi monopoli di pasar. Apakah monopoli tersebut merupakan hasil dari kondisi pasar yang menyebabkan hanya ada satu pelaku usaha di pasar (monopoli alamiah); karena adanya peran pemerintah melalui peraturan perundang-undangan dalam rangka melindungi kepentingan umum; atau merupakan hasil dari hambatan masuk yang disengaja dari sebuah regulasi pemerintah yang berdampak mengganggu persaingan. Tesis ini membahas potensi praktek monopoli dalam penyediaan TKBM di Pelabuhan Tanjung Priok berdasarkan hak monopoli yang dimiliki Koperasi Tenaga Kerja Bongkar Muat (TKBM) di Pelabuhan Tanjung Priok melalui SKB tahun 2011 tentang Pembinaan dan Penataan Koperasi TKBM. Selain itu, juga membahas potensi dampak peraturan tersebut terhadap persaingan usaha di industri jasa penyediaan TKBM di Pelabuhan Tanjung Priok. Penelitian tesis ini menggunakan metode deskriptif-analitis dengan hasilnya menyimpulkan bahwa SKB tahun 2011 tersebut berpotensi menimbulkan praktek monopoli oleh pemegang hak monopoli. Hal ini dapat dilihat dari terciptanya eksploitasi konsumen dari sisi non-harga yaitu rendahnya produktivitas TKBM, dan sisi harga (tidak langsung) melalui terciptanya pengeluaran biaya tinggi tanpa diiringi dengan kinerja yang sepadan. SKB juga memiliki potensi dampak negatif terhadap persaingan usaha. Dampak tersebut berupa diskriminasi terhadap calon kompetitor melalui pembatasan/pengurangan pelaku usaha di pasar (hambatan masuk bagi pesaing potensial untuk menggarap pasar penyediaan jasa TKB), menghilangkan kesempatan bagi konsumen untuk mendapatkan alternatif produk dengan kualitas dan harga yang bersaing, serta tidak adanya insentif bagi incumbent untuk meningkatkan kualitas produk yang dimiliki.

---

Monopoly is not something that is automatically prohibited under competition perspective. This is due to evidence of monopolistic practices under the principle of the rule of reason. Is it true that the monopolistic practice lead to prevention, restriction, and lessening of competition as well as the consumer exploitation? Are monopolistic practices causing economic inefficiency, creating unreasonable prices, consumer exploitation from non - price side, excess profit of monopolist, barrier to entry, and others? It is also necessary to analyze the causes of monopoly behavior of the holder of a monopoly position. Is the monopoly the result of market conditions so there is only one business actor in the market (natural monopoly); or because of the government role through legislation in order to protect the public interest; or monopolist in the market is the result of a deliberate barriers to entry that come from government regulation to lessening competition. This thesis discusses the potential of monopolistic practices because of monopoly held by Cooperative of Stevedore (TKBM) at Tanjung Priok Port by Joint Decree (SKB) of 2011 concerning Management and Structuring of Stevedore Cooperative. It was also discuses about the potential impact of the regulation on competition in the stevedore providing industry in Port Tanjung Priok. This thesis uses descriptive - analytical method with the results concluded that the SKB of 2011 potentially create monopolistic practices by the holder of the monopoly that are the creation of non - price consumer exploitation in the form of low productivity of stevedore, the creation of higher expenses without being accompanied by commensurate performance. SKB also has the potential negative impacts on competition that are discrimination against potential competitors through limiting/lessening business actors in the market (barrier to entry for potential competitors to work on the market of stevedore providing services), the opportunity loss for consumers to get an alternative product under competitive quality and price, and the absence of incentives for the incumbent to improve the quality of their products."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai praktik monopoli jasa bongkar muat petikemas di Pelabuhan L. Say Maumere oleh PT Pelindo III (Persero) dalam Putusan KPPU No.15/KPPU-L/2018. Majelis Komisi KPPU menyatakan praktik monopoli terbukti berdasarkan kebijakan penataan pelabuhan yang dibuat oleh PT Pelindo III (Persero) selaku operator terminal pelabuhan L. Say Maumere yang mewajibkan penumpukan 100% petikemas di Container Yard sehingga mendapat keberatan dari beberapa perusahan pelayaran selaku pengguna jasa. Penelitian ini membuktikan bahwa PT Pelindo III (Persero) tidak terbukti melakukan praktik monopoli dan/atau persaingan usaha tidak sehat. Selain itu memberikan saran kepada pemerintah terutama Kementerian Perhubungan, KSOP Pelabuhan, Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha, dan Pelaku Usaha terkait penyelenggaraan kepelabuhananThis thesis analyzes the monopolistic practice by PT Pelindo III (Persero) in loading and unloading container services at L. Say Maumere Port. The KPPU RI commission assembly stated that the monopolistic practice has proved based on the port restructuring policy issued by PT Pelindo III (Persero) as the operator of L. Say Maumere port terminal that required 100% stacking of containers in Container Yard. The policy received objections from several shipping companies as service users. This research concludes that PT Pelindo III (Persero) has not proven of monopolistic action and/or unfair business competition. In addition, this research provides advice related to port management to the government, especially the Ministry of Transportation of the Republic of Indonesia, Port KSOP, Supervision of Business Competition of the Republic of Indonesia, and Business Actors."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai penguasaan pengelolaan air bersih di Pulau Batam yang dimiliki oleh PT Adhya Tirta Batam. Otorita Batam merupakan pemegang wewenang monopoli air bersih di Pulau Batam berdasarkan Pasal 16 UU No. 7/2004 yang merupakan pengaturan lebih lanjut dari ketentuan Pasal 33 UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Dalam melaksanakan wewenang tersebut, Otorita Batam menunjuk PT Adhya Tirta Batam sebagai satu-satunya pelaksana pengelolaan air bersih di Pulau Batam dan kerja sama ini dibuat dalam perjanjian konsesi. Untuk membuktikan ketentuan yang diatur dalam UU No. 5/1999, harus ditegaskan terlebih dahulu termasuk yang dikecualikan atau tidak. Hal ini mengingat pengecualian tersebut bersifat mutlak. Pada prakteknya, PT Adhya Tirta Batam merugikan masyarakat karena mengurangi pemasangan sambungan meteran baru dan tidak melakukan investasi untuk menambah kapasitas air bersih. KPPU dalam perkara Nomor 11/KKPU-L/2008 memutuskan bahwa PT Adhya Tirta Batam terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan melanggar Pasal 17 UU No. 5/1999. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis-normatif, dimana sumber data diperoleh dari data sekunder yang akan dianalisis secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa putusan KPPU belum sesuai dengan UU No. 5/1999. Meskipun PT Adhya Tirta Batam melakukan praktek monopoli, KPPU tidak dapat menghukumnya berdasarkan UU No. 5/1999. Hal ini dikarenakan penguasaan pengelolaan air bersih di Pulau Batam yang dimiliki oleh PT Adhya Tirta Batam termasuk yang dikecualikan dari keberlakuan UU No. 5/1999. Oleh karena itu, KPPU hanya dapat memberikan saran dan pertimbangan kepada pemerintah terhadap kebijakannya yang mengakibatkan praktek monopoli sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 35 huruf e UU No. 5/1999.

---

This thesis discusses about the authorization of clean water management in Batam Island which belongs to Adhya Tirta Batam Corporation. Otorita Batam is the holder of clean water monopoly in the Batam Island based on Article 16 Law Number 7 Year 2004 which is more arrangement than Article 33 Constitution of Indonesia Year 1945. In implementing of this authority, Otorita Batam elects Adhya Tirta Batam Corporation as the only executive of clean water management in Batam Island and makes this cooperation in concession agreement. To proved the decision which manage in Law Number 5 year 1999, must explained first include which except or not. This is because the exclusions are absolute. In practice, Adhya Tirta Batam Corporation do damage to society because reduces the installation of new meter connection and didn’t do invest to increase the capacity of clean water. KPPU in case Number 11/KPPU-L/2008 decided that Adhya Tirta Batam Corporation is evidently legitimate and convincing break Article 17 Law Number 5 Year 1999. This research is a juridical-normative research, which the source of data obtained from secondary data that will be analyzed qualitatively. Results of this research showed KPPU’s decision isn’t appropriate with Law Number 5 Year 1999. Although Adhya Tirta Batam Corporation do monopoly practice, KPPU can’t punish them based on Law Number 5 year 1999. This condition is because of the authorization of clean water management in Batam Island belongs to Adhya Tirta Batam Corporation includes in exception Law Number 5 Year 1999. Therefore, KPPU only can give suggestions and considerations to government policy that causes monopoly practice as arranged in Article 35 letter e Law Number 5 Year 1999."

"Pasal 51 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat menangani perlakuan terhadap monopoli Negara oleh hukum persaingan usaha. Monopoli Negara yang dilakukan pemerintah berkaitan dengan produksi dan atau pemasaran barang dan atau jasa yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak. Seperti halnya monopoli Negara di bidang jasa kepelabuhanan berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 1992 tentang Pelayaran. Penyelenggaraan pelabuhan dilakukan oleh pemerintah melalui BUMN (PT Pelindo). Pemberlakuan Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 1992 tentang Pelayaran perlu dilakukan penyesuaian karena monopoli yang dilakukan pemerintah melalui BUMN (PT Pelindo) menghambat pengembangan pelabuhan dan membatasi persaingan karena kurangnya partisipasi pihak swasta dan pemerintah daerah. Undang- undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2008 tentang Pelayaran terbentuk untuk menggantikan Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 1992 tentang Pelayaran. Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2008 memuat ketentuan mengenai penghapusan monopoli di bidang jasa kepelabuhanan. Membuka kesempatan pelaku usaha lainnya untuk dapat melakukan kegiatan pengusahaan di pelabuhan sebagai Badan Usaha Pelabuhan. Pemisahan fungsi regulator dan operator, fungsi regulator dilakukan oleh pemerintah melalui Kementerian Perhubungan yang kemudian dilakukan oleh Otoritas Pelabuhan dan Unit Penyelenggara Pelabuhan. Sedangkan fungsi operator dilakukan oleh Badan Usaha Pelabuhan yang telah mendapatkan izin untuk melakukan kegiatan pengusahaan di pelabuhan. Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2008 tentang Pelayaran juga memberikan peran serta pemerintah daerah dan swasta secara proporsional untuk melakukan kerjasama di bidang jasa kepelabuhanan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan pada tesis ini adalah metode penelitian normatif.

---

Article 51 Law No. 5/1999 on prohibition of monopolistic practices and unfair business competition of state monopolistic handled by competition law. State monopolistic by government associated with production and or marketing of goods and or services that dominate public needs. For example, state monopolistic in port services by Law No. 21/1992 on Shipping. Organizing port which done by the government through state enterprises (Indonesia Port Corporation). Enforcement of Law No. 21/1992 must to changes because monopoly by government through state enterprises (Indonesia Port Corporation) inhibit the development of ports and restrict competition because lack of the participation of the private sector and local government. Law No.17/2008 on Shipping is form for change Law No.21/1992 on Shipping. Law No.17/2008 on Shipping contains provisions about elimination of the monopoly of port services. It is open the opportunity other businesses to conduct exploitation activities in the harbor as a port entity. Separation of the regulator and the operator; promulgation through Ministry of Transportation performed by the port authority and port operator unit. While the operator by port entity that has obtained permission to conduct activities in the port consession. Law No. 17/2008 on Shipping also provide participation of local government and private sector proportionally to perform cooperation in port services. Research methods used in this thesis is a normative research methods."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai pengaturan hukum persaingan usaha mengenai penetapan tarif angkutan kontainer dan posisi asosiasi usaha dalam hukum persaingan usaha. Hasil dari penelitian menemukan bahwa Organda dinyatakan sebagai pelaku usaha, sementara Organda tidak melakukan kegiatan ekonomi sehingga tidak memenuhi pasal 1 ayat (5) UU No.5 Tahun 1999. Selain itu, penelitian menemukan bahwa tarif angkutan kontainer di Pelabuhan,Belawan ditetapkan berdasarkan negosiasi antara perusahaan pengguna jasa dan penyedia jasa. Perjanjian penetapan harga dijadikan sebagai batas atas saat negosiasi. Hal ini melanggar pasal 5 UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat.

---

The purpose of this thesis is about establishment tariff container and position trade association, in the point of view in Indonesia’s antitrust regulation. The result from this analysis found that Organda is defined as business man, although Organda doesn’t do economic activity, so it doesn’t violate Article 1 point 5 Law No.5 Year 1999. Another result found that tariff transportation of container in Belawan Port is established based by negotiation between service user and service provider. Price fixing agreement is used as tariff maximum in negotiation. The price fixing agreement must be violating Article 5, Law No.5 Year 1999 about Anti-monopoly and Prohibition of Unfair Competition."