Analisis Persekongkolan Tender Sebagai Kegiatan Yang Dilarang Di Dalam Hukum Persaingan Usaha
(Studi Kasus Putusan KPPU Nomor : 01/KPPU-I/2017)
Total View This Week0
Total View This Week0
Institusion
Universitas Kristen Indonesia
Author
Panjaitan, Yosef Rozeky
Subject
Trade regulations. Control of trade practices
Datestamp
2020-07-23 04:06:51
Abstract :
Skripsi ini membahas mengenai Bagaimana kronologi kasus putusan KPPU Nomor 01/KPPU-I/2017 dan bagaimana analisis yuridis Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha terhadap persekongkolan dalam perkara putusan tersebut serta Bagaimana analisis yuridis Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha terhadap persekong kolan dalam perkara tersebut. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif yaitu mengkaji peraturan perundangan ?undangan tentang persaingan usaha khususnya tender(studi Kasus Putusan nomor 01/KPPU-I/20170 yang berlaku, yang berkaitan dengan rumusan masalah dalam skripsi ini dan juga pemecah masalahnya KSO Terlapor I dan Terlapor II dengan Terlapor III tidak dihukum melanggar Undang Undang Nomor 5 tahun 1999 dengan pertimbangan bahwa Terlpor III tidak mengikuti paket, tender yang diikuti oleh KSO Terlapor I dan Terlapor II. Walupun fakta fakta membuktikan, tetapi tidak serta-merta dikategorikan sebagai persekongkolan karena dalam hal ini persekongkolan horizontal KSO Terlapor I dan Terlapor II dengan Terlapor III, tidak sesuai dengan persekongkolan yang dimaksud dalam pedoman pasal 22 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2015 Kata kunci : Hukuman Persaingan Usaha, Persekongkolan Tender This thesis discusses the chronology of the KPPU Decision Number 01 / KPPU-I / 2017 and how the juridical analysis of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission on the conspiracy in the case of the decision and how the juridical analysis of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission on the kolek conspiracy in the case. This study uses a normative juridical approach that examines the laws and regulations on business competition, especially tenders (Case Study of Decision number 01 / KPPU-I / 20170 applicable, which is related to the problem formulation in this thesis and also the problem solver The KSO of Reported Party I and Reported Party II with Reported Party III were not convicted of violating Law Number 5 of 1999 with the consideration that Reported Party III did not follow the package, the tender was followed by KSO of Reported Party I and Reported Party II. Even though the facts prove, but not necessarily categorized as a conspiracy because in this case the horizontal conspiracy of Reported Party I and Reported Party II with Reported Party III, is not in accordance with the conspiracy referred to in the guidelines of article 22 of Law Number 5 of 2015
Skripsi ini membahas mengenai Bagaimana kronologi kasus putusan KPPU Nomor 01/KPPU-I/2017 dan bagaimana analisis yuridis Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha terhadap persekongkolan dalam perkara putusan tersebut serta Bagaimana analisis yuridis Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha terhadap persekong kolan dalam perkara tersebut. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif yaitu mengkaji peraturan perundangan ?undangan tentang persaingan usaha khususnya tender(studi Kasus Putusan nomor 01/KPPU-I/20170 yang berlaku, yang berkaitan dengan rumusan masalah dalam skripsi ini dan juga pemecah masalahnya KSO Terlapor I dan Terlapor II dengan Terlapor III tidak dihukum melanggar Undang Undang Nomor 5 tahun 1999 dengan pertimbangan bahwa Terlpor III tidak mengikuti paket, tender yang diikuti oleh KSO Terlapor I dan Terlapor II. Walupun fakta fakta membuktikan, tetapi tidak serta-merta dikategorikan sebagai persekongkolan karena dalam hal ini persekongkolan horizontal KSO Terlapor I dan Terlapor II dengan Terlapor III, tidak sesuai dengan persekongkolan yang dimaksud dalam pedoman pasal 22 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2015 Kata kunci : Hukuman Persaingan Usaha, Persekongkolan Tender This thesis discusses the chronology of the KPPU Decision Number 01 / KPPU-I / 2017 and how the juridical analysis of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission on the conspiracy in the case of the decision and how the juridical analysis of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission on the kolek conspiracy in the case. This study uses a normative juridical approach that examines the laws and regulations on business competition, especially tenders (Case Study of Decision number 01 / KPPU-I / 20170 applicable, which is related to the problem formulation in this thesis and also the problem solver The KSO of Reported Party I and Reported Party II with Reported Party III were not convicted of violating Law Number 5 of 1999 with the consideration that Reported Party III did not follow the package, the tender was followed by KSO of Reported Party I and Reported Party II. Even though the facts prove, but not necessarily categorized as a conspiracy because in this case the horizontal conspiracy of Reported Party I and Reported Party II with Reported Party III, is not in accordance with the conspiracy referred to in the guidelines of article 22 of Law Number 5 of 2015
Download
book
BibTex
Latex, Jabref
cloud_download
Original Resource
url resource Institution
