TINJAUAN YURIDIS TERHADAP PERTIMBANGAN HUKUM KOMISI PENGAWAS PERSAINGAN USAHA (KPPU) DALAM MENETAPKAN GANTI RUGI AKIBAT ADANYA PELANGGARAN PASAL 22 UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 5 TAHUN 1999

Pamundi, Putri (2018) TINJAUAN YURIDIS TERHADAP PERTIMBANGAN HUKUM KOMISI PENGAWAS PERSAINGAN USAHA (KPPU) DALAM MENETAPKAN GANTI RUGI AKIBAT ADANYA PELANGGARAN PASAL 22 UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 5 TAHUN 1999. S1 thesis, UAJY.

Preview	Text (HALAMAN JUDUL) HK116940.pdf Download (5MB) | Preview
Preview	Text (BAB I) HK116941.pdf Download (276kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (BAB II) HK116942.pdf Download (547kB) | Preview
	Text (BAB III) HK116943.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (361kB)

Abstract

Collusive tendering is one of prohibited activities on Act No. 5 Year 1999. However in fact, there are many cases of collusive tendering. Collusive tendering is inherently anti-competitive and causes material loss. The roles of the judge of The Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU) in determining the compensation amount is not easy, it is because the criteria depend on the judge subjectivity. Therefore, the writer is interested to conduct a research about “Juridical Overview of Law Consideration of The Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU) in Determining the Compensation Amount of Violation of Article no 22 on Act No. 5 Year 1999. The hypothesis of this research is what are criteria used by KPPU to determine the compensation caused by the violation of Article no 22 on Act No.5 Year 1999? The research method used is normative law research. The result of this research is the criteria used by Assembly Commission as the base to punish the reported party to pay the compensation are as follows: the reported party activities legally and convincingly have been already proved that the elements in Article no 22 on Act No.5 Year 1999 are fulfilled, the reported party action eliminates fair competition and causes apparent competition, the action of the reported party causes some loss for the nations, KPPU views the role and the level of benefit gained by the reported party due to the collusive tendering it did, Collusive tendering is not appropriate with the Good Corporate Governance principles, and the last is the administrative punishment is only given to the businessmen.

Actions (login required)

View Item