Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"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."

"Pelabuhan Penyeberangan Merak-Bakauheni adalah jalur lintas penghubung antara Pulau Jawa dan Pulau Sumatera. Dengan perannya sebagai penggerak pertumbuhan ekonomi antar pulau, diharapkan kelancaran pergerakan penumpang dan barang dapat berlangsung secara efektif dan efisien. Dengan memanfaatkan waktu semaksimal mungkin dan penerapan manajemen yang baik, maka akan mengurangi waktu dan banyaknya antrean karena harus menunggu kapal ferry Ro-Ro yang sedang bongkar muat. Bongkar muat yang lama/melebihi ketentuan akan membuat jarak tempuh/waktu tempuh menjadi panjang/lama . Oleh karena itu optimalisasi dari waktu bongkar muat perlu dilakukan untuk memperlancar arus penyeberangan dan antrean kendaraan. Dan juga perlunya penyeragaman kendaraan yang masuk ke dalam kapal Ro- Ro agar tata letak kendaraan di dalam kapal menjadi mudah dan cepat sehingga efisien terhadap waktu.

---

Merak - Bakauheni port is connecting pathway between Java and Sumatra Island. Consistent with its role as a driver of economic growth between islands, hopefully smooth movement of passengers and freight to be carried out effectively and efficiently. With the use of time as closely as possible and good management practices, it will reduce the time and number of queue because they have to wait for Ro-Ro ferry is loading and unloading. Loading and unloading of the old / excess provision will make the mileage / time period to be long / long. Therefore, optimization of loading and unloading time should be done to facilitate the crossing of currents and vehicle queue. And also the need for the standardization of vehicles into the ship Ro-Ro transport so that the layout of the craft to be easy and fast so efficient with time."

"PT Pelindo (Persero) merupakan Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) yang didirikan khusus untuk melakukan pengusahaan terhadap kegiatan kepelabuhanan di Indonesia, yang salah satunya adalah penyediaan jasa bongkar muat. Penelitian ini membahas terkait dugaan penguasaan pasar dalam penyediaan jasa bongkar muat yang secara khusus dilakukan oleh PT Pelindo IV (Persero) di Dermaga Yos Sudarso Pelabuhan Ambon, dengan melakukan analisis terhadap Putusan KPPU Nomor 29/KPPU-L/2020. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengkaji terkait posisi PT Pelindo IV (Persero) selaku Badan Usaha Pelabuhan (“BUP”) Dermaga Yos Sudarso Pelabuhan Ambon yang telah menerima hak konsesi dari negara, serta kesesuaian pertimbangan Majelis Hakim KPPU dalam Putusan No. 29/KPPU-L/2020 mengenai Pasal 19 huruf A dan B serta Pasal 50 huruf A jo. Pasal 51 UU No. 5 Tahun 1999. Penelitian ini bersifat yuridis normatif dengan metode analisis kualitatif. Merujuk pada hal tersebut, penulis akan mengaitkan antara pokok permasalahan dengan peraturan serta doktrin terkait. Setelah penulis menganalisis dan membandingkan antara pertimbangan Majelis Hakim KPPU dengan yurisprudensi terdahulu, penulis menyimpulkan bahwa terdapat kekeliruan dalam pertimbangan Majelis Hakim KPPU terkait posisi PT Pelindo IV (Persero) sebagai BUMN khusus kepelabuhanan yang telah diberikan hak konsesi oleh negara sebagai salah satu bentuk Monopoli Negara dan merupakan pelaksanaan Pasal 33 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Oleh karena itu, KPPU sebagai lembaga penegak hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia untuk lebih kritis dalam mempertimbangkan posisi, peran dan fungsi dari PT Pelindo (Persero) sebagai BUMN penyelenggara kegiatan kepelabuhanan di Indonesia.

---

PT Pelindo (Persero) is a State Owned Enterprise (“SOE”) which was specifically established to operate port activities in Indonesia, one of which is providing container services. This research discusses the alleged market control in the provision of container services which were specifically carried out by PT Pelindo IV (Persero) at Yos Sudarso Pier, Port of Ambon, by analyzing the Verdict of KPPU Number 29/KPPU-L/2020. The purpose of this research is to analyze the position of PT Pelindo IV (Persero) as the Port Company of Yos Sudarso Pier, Port of Ambon, and the suitability of the KPPU Panel of Judges’ consideration in Verdict No. 29/KPPU-L/2020 regarding Article 19 letters A and B and Article 50 letter A jo. Article 51 of Law Number 5 of 1999. This research is judicial-normative with qualitative analysis method. Therefore, the author will link the subject matter with related regulations and doctrines. After the author has analyzed and compared between KPPU Panel of Judges’ considerations with previous jurisprudence, the author concluded that there was a mistake in the consideration of PT Pelindo IV (Persero)’s position as a special SOE for ports that had been granted concession rights by the state, which as a form of State Monopoly and is the implementation of Article 33 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, KPPU as the business competition law enforces in Indonesia should be more critical in considering the position, role, and the function of PT Pelindo (Persero) as a SOE that organizes port activities in Indonesia."

"Kerjasama pengelolaan Terminal Peti kemas Pelabuhan, Tanjung Priok antara Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) yakni PT (Persero) Pelabuhan Indonesia II dengan PT Jakarta International Container Terminal (JICT) menimbulkan permasalahan terhadap pelaksanaan persaingan usaha sehat dalam Pasar Bongkar Muat Petikemas di Pelabuhan Tanjung Priok. Tujuan awal pelaksanaan kerjasama dalam rangka mewujudkan pelayanan jasa bongkar muat yang optimal bagi masyarakat menjadi tidak terpenuhi. Hal ini ditandai dengan terbuktinya JICT melakukan pelanggaran Undang-Undang No 5 Tahun 1999 Pasal 17 tentang Monopoli dan Pasal 25 Tentang Posisi Dominan, dalam menjalankan kegiatan usahanya dengan tujuan mematikan pesaing-pesaingnya para pelaku usaha yang sama dan menjalankan pola kegiatan usaha yang bernuansa persaingan usaha tidak sehat."

"Penelitian tentang tanggung jawab perusahaan bongkar muat atas terjadinya kerusakan barang dalam pelaksanaan bongkar muat barang di pelabuhan Tanjung Priok Jakarta merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif. Tujuan diadakannya penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui lebih mendalam pelaksanaan bongkar muat barang yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan bongkar muat dan untuk mengetahui batas tanggung jawab perusahaan bongkar muat barang apabila terjadi kecelakaan maupun kerusakan barang. Data primer maupun sekunder yang diperoleh, diambil secara kualitatif normatif, selanjutnya disusun dalam penelitian/ tesis yang bersifat deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dalam pelaksanaannya pihak perusahaan bongkar muat tidak melakukan pembongkaran secara langsung akan tetapi bekerja sama dengan pihak koperasi buruh pelabuhan yang akan menyediakan tenaga buruh untuk melaksanakan kegiatan bongkar muat barang dari dan ke kapal. Bahwa dalam menentukan tanggung jawab atas kerusakan atau kehilangan terhadap barang yang di bongkar atau dimuatnya, perusahaan bongkar muat dengan surveyor, perusahaan pelayaran, pengirim atau penerima barang mengadakan musyawarah atau joint survei.

---

The Research on responsibility of loading and unloading company for the happening of goods damage in execution of loading and unloading goods in port Tanjung Priok Jakarta is a juridical normative research. The research aims to know the implementation execution of loading and unloading goods by loading and unloading company and to know the boundary of responsibility of loading and unloading company goods in the event of accident and also goods damage. The research analyzed the primary data and secondary data qualitatively and normatively, and then presented the analysis a descriptive research report/thesis.

The findings show that in its execution side of loading and unloading company not unload directly however cooperating unrightiously is docker co-operation to provide the manpower to execute the loading and unloading activities of goods from and to ship. That in determining responsibility for damage or loss to goods which is unloading or loading of loading and unloading company by surveyor, liner, consignor or goods receiver perform negotiation or joint survey."

"Hak Monopoli merupakan suatu hak bagi Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) untuk melakukan penguasaan atas barang dan/atau jasa dalam pasar sebagaimana sistem operasinya menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak. Contoh pemberian hak monopoli adalah kepada PT Pelabuhan Indonesia III (PT Pelindo III) selaku BUMN yang menjadi Badan Usaha Pelabuhan di Pelabuhan L. Say Maumere. Sejatinya hak monopoli bukanlah hak untuk melakukan praktik monopoli, dengan demikian saat PT Pelindo III menerapkan kebijakan wajib stacking bagi kegiatan bongkar muat peti kemas di Pelabuhan L. Say Maumere yang berdampak pada terjadinya kenaikan harga yang tidak seharusnya, dan menghalangi kesempatan perusahaan bongkar muat untuk melakukan kerja sama dengan perusahaan-perusahaan angkutan laut nasional yang hendak melakukan kegiatan usaha bongkar muat di Pelabuhan L. Say Maumere, Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) menyatakan dalam Putusan KPPU Nomor 15/KPPU-L/2018, bahwa PT Pelindo III terbukti melakukan pelanggaran terhadap Pasal 17 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) huruf b Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat (UU Larangan Praktek Monopoli). Memahami haknya untuk mengajukan gugatan balik melalui Pengadilan Negeri atas keberatannya atas kasus tersebut, PT Pelindo III menggugat KPPU ke Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya pada tahun 2019 dan memohon Hakim Pengadilan Negeri untuk menyatakan bahwa PT Pelindo III tidak terbukti bersalah melanggar Pasal 17 ayat 1 dan ayat 2 huruf b UU Larangan Praktek Monopoli. Gugatan tersebut kemudian diterima oleh Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya, dan melahirkan Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya Nomor 905/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2019/PN yang mencabut Putusan KPPU Nomor 15/KPPU-L/2018. Berpegang dengan Putusan yang telah dikeluarkannya, KPPU mengajukan kasasi kepada Mahkamah Agung, namun Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1344 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2020 menguatkan putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya dan menolak gugatan dari KPPU meskipun di dalam Putusannya, Mahkamah Agung menilai bahwa terdapat 2 (dua) unsur landasan dalam menentukan ada atau tidaknya praktik monopoli, yang unsur-unsurnya berbeda dengan Pedoman Pelaksanaan Pasal 17 UU Larangan Praktek Monopoli yang dipublikasikan oleh KPPU.

---

Monopoly rights grant state-owned enterprises (BUMN) the authority to conduct monopoly over goods and/or services in a market, since state-owned enterprises often operates for the welfare of the public. For instance, PT Pelabuhan Indonesia III (PT Pelindo III) has been granted a monopoly rights over port operations at Port L. Say Maumere. While monopoly rights do not equate to the freedom to engage in monopolistic practices, PT Pelindo III's mandatory stacking policy for container loading and unloading at Port L. Say Maumere has resulted in unjustified price increases and hindered other stevedoring companies from collaborating with national shipping companies. Consequently, the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU) ruled in Decision No. 15/KPPU-L/2018 that PT Pelindo III had violated Article 17 paragraphs (1) and (2) letter b of Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Anti- Monopoly Law. Exercising its right to file a counterclaim, PT Pelindo III sued KPPU in the Surabaya District Court in 2019, seeking a declaration that PT Pelindo III had not violated the aforementioned law. The Surabaya District Court granted PT Pelindo III's request, issuing Decision No. 905/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2019/PN which overturned the KPPU's decision. Undeterred, the KPPU appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court upheld the District Court's ruling in Decision No. 1344 K/Pdt.Sus- KPPU/2020, dismissing the KPPU's appeal. Interestingly, while affirming the Surabaya District Court decision, the Supreme Court noted that there are two essential elements in determining the existence of monopolistic practices, which differ from the KPPU's Guidelines to Implement Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai analisis putusan Pengadilan Negeri Medan Nomor 175/Pdt.G/2014/PN.Mdn. Skripsi ini membahas mengenai penerapan prosedur tata cara permohonan keberatan atas putusan KPPU berdasarkan dengan hukum acara persaigan usaha di Indonesia serta penerapan ketentuan perjanjian penetapan harga horizontal berdasarkan hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia. Dari hasil penelitian ini, ditemukan bahwa Pengajuan permohonan keberatan oleh Para Pemohon Keberatan tidak sesuai dengan hukum acara persaingan usaha di Indonesia karena bertentangan dengan Pasal 4 Ayat (4) dan Pasal 4 Ayat (6) Perma Nomor 3 Tahun 2005. Kemudian pertimbangan hakim bahwa konsumen tidak dirugikan atas perjanjian tersebut tidaklah cukup karena dalam penggunaan pendekatan rule of reason harus dibuktikan bahwa perjanjian tersebut meningkatkan efisiensi sehingga konsumen tidak dirugikan.

---

This thesis discusses the analysis of the Medan District Court decision No. 175/Pdt.G/2014/PN.Mdn. This study discusses the application of the procedures for requesting an objection to the decision of the KPPU based on Competition Procedural Law in Indonesia and the application of the horizontal price fixing agreement based Competition Law in Indonesia. From these results, it was found that the submission of objections by the applicant does not comply with the procedural law of business competition in Indonesia because it is contrary to Article 4 Paragraph (4) and Article 4 Paragraph (6) Perma No. 3 of 2005. Then judge considered that consumers are not harmed on the agreement is not enough because the use of a rule of reason approach must be proven that the agreement improves efficiency which give benefit to consumers."

"[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.]"

"UU No. 5/1999 bertujuan untuk menciptakan persaingan usaha sehat dan berasaskan demokrasi ekonomi dengan memperhatikan keseimbangan antar kepentingan pelaku usaha dan kepentingan umum. Hal ini menjadi tidak jelas manakala KPPU dalam Putusan No. 08/KPPU-L/2018 memutuskan pelaku usaha freight container, yang memiliki peran penting khususnya di Indonesia sebagai negara kepulauan, dinyatakan bersalah melakukan price fixing sementara di sisi lain, persaingan usaha menjadi hal yang mutlak terjadi di antara para pelaku usaha yang berorientasi pada market economy. Oleh karena itu penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan persaingan pada industri jasa freight container dalam rute Surabaya menuju Ambon dan menjelaskan kesesuaian Putusan KPPU No. 08/KPPU-L/2018 berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan persaingan usaha di Indonesia terhadap industri jasa freight container rute Surabaya-Ambon. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif-deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa: Usaha jasa freight container rute Surabaya-Ambon memiliki struktur dan karakteristik pasar oligopoli yang saling berperang harga akibat ketatnya persaingan; Putusan No. 08/KPPU-L/2018 tidak sesuai dengan teori-teori dalam hukum persaingan usaha dikarenakan unsur “perjanjian”, “pelaku usaha pesaing”, “menetapkan harga” dan “pasar bersangkutan” dalam Pasal 5 ayat (1) UU No. 5/1999 yang dipersalahkan terhadap para terlapor tidak terbukti terpenuhi sebab surat penyesuaian kenaikan tarif yang dikeluarkan para terlapor tidak dapat membuktikan bahwa telah terjadi suatu kesepakatan atau komunikasi secara bersama-sama dalam menaikkan tarif freight container dengan bukti harga yang tercantum pada bukti surat tidak pernah direalisasikan. Saran dalam penelitian ini meliputi standarisasi tarif oleh regulator dan tata kelola persaingan usaha dalam industri pelayaran yang sesuai dengan asas keseimbangan

---

Laws of the Republic Indonesia No. 5/1999 was made to create a competition in the free market based on economical democracy by observing the equilibrium between the interest of the business entity and the interest of the people. The matter becomes uncertain when KPPU within the verdict No. 08/KPPU-L/2018 decided the business entity freight container, the one who has an important role, especially in Indonesia as an Island Nation, is stated guilty on making a price-fixing. Meanwhile, on the other side, the competition in the business field becomes absolute only between the business entity that is market economy-oriented. Therefore, this research carry the importance of explaining the competition in the services business of freight container industry within the limitation of Surabaya-Ambon route, and explaining the suitability of KPPU’s decision No, 08/KPPU-L/2018 basing it on the laws of the Republic Indonesia regarding business entities competition in Indonesia on the matter of freight container Surabaya-Ambon route. Using the law’s research method descriptive-normative. The result of the research found that: the service business of freight container Surabaya-Ambon route has the structure and characteristics of oligopoly market, where there are war on pricing between business entities caused by the strict competition between them; the KPPU’s verdict No. 08/KPPU-L/2018 is not compatible with the theories of business entities competition law because the element of “agreement”, “business competitors”, “fixed pricing” and “related markets” in article 5 verse (1) Laws of The Republic Indonesia No. 5/1999 that is being put upon defendant not proven legitimate, caused by the letter issued by the claimant does not involve any sign of agreement or joint communication regarding price increment on freight container services with the proof of the written price was never objectified. The Suggestion for this research covers the standardized rate of the regulator and the management of the competition between business entities that provide services for shipment based on balance."

"Salah satu bentuk dari kegiatan perekonomian khususnya dibidang perdagangan adalah keagenan, dalam hal ini keagenan adalah salah satu bentuk perikatan khusus dibidang perdagangan. Masalah-masalah yang biasa atau mungkin timbul didalam praktek keagenan khususnya di Indonesia juga memerlukan pengaturan lebih lanjut. Untuk itu Pemerintah Indonesia mengeluarkan peraturan-peraturan yang berhubungan dengan keagenan di Indonesia, Bentuk hubungan keagenan umumnya tertuang dalam bentuk perjanjian keagenan yang dibuat antara pihak agen dengan pihak prinsipal. Perjanjian keagenan tersebut mengandung berbagai aspek hukum."