[Skripsi ini membahas mengenai putusan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha
tentang kewajiban penggunaan alat bongkar muat Gantry Luffing Crane. Dalam
rangka meningkatkan efisiensi dan produktivitas bongkar muat di lingkungan
Pelabuhan Tanjung Priok, Para terlapor yakni PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II dan PT
Multi Terminal Indonesia mengeluarkan surat pemberitahuan pemakaian alat
bongkar muat Gantry Luffing Crane secara bersama-sama di Dermaga 101, 101
utara, 102, 114 dan 115 bagi para pengguna jasa pelabuhan. Tindakan tersebut
dirasa KPPU merupakan salah satu bentuk persaingan yang tidak sehat karena PT
Pelabuhan Indonesia II dan PT Multi Terminal Indonesia dinilai telah melakukan
tying agreement dan praktik monopoli yang merugikan pengguna jasa pelabuhan.
Dalam memutus perkara ini, KPPU menjatuhkan hukuman kepada mereka dengan
ketentuan pasal 15 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Skripsi yang
dibuat dengan metode yuridis normatif ini meyimpulkan bahwa KPPU tidak tepat
dalam memutus bersalah para terlapor dengan ketentuan mengenai tying
agreement dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, mengingat surat
pemberitahuan bukanlah termasuk dalam pengertian perjanjian.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision of
Bussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloading
equipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency and
productivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,
PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter of
notification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Crane
together at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.
According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competition
because PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done a
tying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In deciding
this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15
paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridical
method concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guilt
of 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 the
agreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision of
Bussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloading
equipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency and
productivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,
PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter of
notification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Crane
together at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.
According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competition
because PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done a
tying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In deciding
this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15
paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridical
method concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guilt
of 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 the
agreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision of
Bussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloading
equipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency and
productivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,
PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter of
notification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Crane
together at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.
According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competition
because PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done a
tying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In deciding
this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15
paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridical
method concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guilt
of 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 the
agreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision of
Bussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloading
equipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency and
productivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,
PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter of
notification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Crane
together at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.
According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competition
because PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done a
tying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In deciding
this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15
paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridical
method concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guilt
of 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 the
agreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision of
Bussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloading
equipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency and
productivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,
PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter of
notification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Crane
together at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.
According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competition
because PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done a
tying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In deciding
this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15
paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridical
method concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guilt
of 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 the
agreement., This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision of
Bussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloading
equipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency and
productivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,
PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter of
notification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Crane
together at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.
According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competition
because PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done a
tying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In deciding
this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15
paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridical
method concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guilt
of 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 the
agreement.]
S59187-Yosep Butar.pdf :: Unduh