Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
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.

Abstrak :
[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.]