Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Tesis ini membahas tentang lembaga pengawas PT Asabri (Persero) dengan pokok permasalahan 1. Apakah lembaga yang mengawasi PT Asabri (Persero) saat ini sudah sesuai dengan dengan ketentuan Pasal 57 ayat (1) Undang-undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2014 tentang Perasuransian (UUP) dan 2. Apa dampak hukumjika lembaga yang mengawasi PT Asabri (Persero) saat ini tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 57 ayat (1) UUP. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalahyuridis normatif, dengan data sekunder dan teori kewenangan. Hasil yang diperoleh ialah pengaturan tentang lembaga pengawas PT Asabri (Persero)tersebut tidak sejalan dengan ketentuan Pasal 57 ayat (1) UUP. OJK adalah lembaga pengawas perusahaan asuransi, sementaraa lembaga yang mengawasi PTAsabri (Persero) saat ini bukan hanya OJK tetapi juga Kementerian Pertahanan dan Keamanan serta Kementerian Keuangaan dan juga BPK. Pengaturan tentang lembaga pengawas PT. Asabri (Persero) ini berdampak pada koordinasi antar lembaga pengawas dan regulasi yang saling tumpang-tindih yang mengakibatkan pengawasan menjadi kurang baik dan efektif. Saran dari penelitian ini adalah pengaturan lembaga pengawas PT Asabri (Persero) seharusnya mengacu kepada UUP. Jika Itjen Kemenhan dan Kementerian Keuangan tetap perlu ditunjuk sebagai lembaga pengawas, maka OJK diatur sebagai pengawas utama dengan kewenangan koordinasi......This thesis discusses the supervisory agency PT Asabri (Persero) with the main problem 1. Is the institution that supervises PT Asabri (Persero) currently in accordance with the provisions of Article 57 paragraph (1) of Act Number 40 of 2014 concerning Insurance (UUP) and 2. What is the legal impact if theinstitution that supervises PT Asabri (Persero) is currently not in accordance with the provisions of Article 57 paragraph (1) of UUP. The research method used is normative juridical, with secondary data and theory of authority. The result obtained was that the regulation regarding the supervisory agency PT Asabri(Persero) was not in line with the provisions of Article 57 paragraph (1) of UUP. OJK is the supervisory agency for insurance companies, while the institution that supervise PT Asabri (Persero) is currently not only OJK but also the Ministry ofDefense and Security as well as the Ministry of Finance and also the BPK. Regulations regarding the supervisory agency of PT. Asabri (Persero) has animpact on the coordination between supervisory agencies and overlapping regulations which results in poor and effective supervision. The suggestion fromthis research is that the regulation of the supervisory agency PT Asabri (Persero) should refer to the UUP. If the Inspectorate General of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Finance still need to be appointed as the supervisory agency, then the OJK is regulated as the main supervisor with the coordination authority."

"Tulisan ini menganalisis bagaimana kewenenangan lembaga pengawas persaingan usaha di Uni Eropa meninjau dugaan penyalagunaan posisi dominan oleh pelaku usaha yang melaksanakan non reportable transactions berdasarkan hukum persaingan usaha di Uni Eropa dan perbandingannya dengan hukum persaingan usaha Indonesia. Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penulisan yuridis normatif. Transaksi merger antara badan usaha yang memenuhi threshold harus dinotifikasikan kepada lembaga pengawas persaingan usaha. Sementara itu, transaksi yang tidak memenuhi threshold (non-reportable transactions) bebas dari kewajiban notifikasi. Terdapat 2 (dua) jenis sistem notifikasi, yaitu ex-ante dimana notifikasi dilaksanakan sebelum transaksi berlaku efektif, dan ex-post dimana notifikasi dilaksanakan setelah transaksi berlaku efektif secara yuridis. Pada 2023, European Union Court of Justice (ECJ) mengeluarkan preliminary ruling dalam Putusan ECJ Case C-449/21. Pada putusan tersebut terdapat indikasi penyalahgunaan posisi dominan di pasar penyiaran televisi Prancis ketika suatu badan usaha bernama TDF melakukan non-reportable transaction berupa merger dengan kompetitornya yaitu Itas. Kompetitor TDF, yaitu Towercast, mengajukan gugatan menyatakan transaksi tersebut adalah penyalahgunaan posisi dominan dan seharusnya ditinjau kembali. Putusan ECJ menyatakan bahwa non-reportable transactions dapat ditinjau kembali oleh lembaga pengawas persaingan usaha secara ex-post. Putusan tersebut memberi kesadaran bahwa ada kekosongan hukum di hukum persaingan usaha mengenai potensi penyalahgunaan posisi dominan pada non-reportable transactions.......This paper analyzes the authority of business competition authorities in the European Union (EU) reviews allegations of abuse of dominant position by business actors through non-reportable transactions and its comparison with competition law in Indonesia. This paper was written using the normative juridical method. Mergers that meet thresholds must be notified to the business competition authorities. Transactions that do not meet the thresholds and are thus free from notification obligations are referred to as non-reportable transactions. There are two types of notification systems, namely ex-ante, where notification is carried out prior to a transaction becoming legally effective, and ex-post where the notification is carried out after the transaction becomes effective. In 2023, the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) issued a preliminary ruling in the decision of ECJ Case C-449/21. A company named TDF conducted a non-reportable transaction as it merged with its competitor in the television broadcasting market, named Itas. Its other competitor, Towercast, reported the transaction as an abuse of dominant position and therefore must be re-assessed. The results of the preliminary ruling states that non-reportable transactions can be reviewed ex-post by business competition authorities. The ruling raises awareness that an abuse of a dominant position can potentially be conducted through non-reportable transactions."

"Tulisan ini menganalisis bagaimana kewenenangan lembaga pengawas persaingan usaha di Uni Eropa meninjau dugaan penyalagunaan posisi dominan oleh pelaku usaha yang melaksanakan non reportable transactions berdasarkan hukum persaingan usaha di Uni Eropa dan perbandingannya dengan hukum persaingan usaha Indonesia. Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penulisan yuridis normatif. Transaksi merger antara badan usaha yang memenuhi threshold harus dinotifikasikan kepada lembaga pengawas persaingan usaha. Sementara itu, transaksi yang tidak memenuhi threshold (non-reportable transactions) bebas dari kewajiban notifikasi. Terdapat 2 (dua) jenis sistem notifikasi, yaitu ex-ante dimana notifikasi dilaksanakan sebelum transaksi berlaku efektif, dan ex-post dimana notifikasi dilaksanakan setelah transaksi berlaku efektif secara yuridis. Pada 2023, European Union Court of Justice (ECJ) mengeluarkan preliminary ruling dalam Putusan ECJ Case C-449/21. Pada putusan tersebut terdapat indikasi penyalahgunaan posisi dominan di pasar penyiaran televisi Prancis ketika suatu badan usaha bernama TDF melakukan non-reportable transaction berupa merger dengan kompetitornya yaitu Itas. Kompetitor TDF, yaitu Towercast, mengajukan gugatan menyatakan transaksi tersebut adalah penyalahgunaan posisi dominan dan seharusnya ditinjau kembali. Putusan ECJ menyatakan bahwa non-reportable transactions dapat ditinjau kembali oleh lembaga pengawas persaingan usaha secara ex-post. Putusan tersebut memberi kesadaran bahwa ada kekosongan hukum di hukum persaingan usaha mengenai potensi penyalahgunaan posisi dominan pada non-reportable transactions.......This paper analyzes the authority of business competition authorities in the European Union (EU) reviews allegations of abuse of dominant position by business actors through non-reportable transactions and its comparison with competition law in Indonesia. This paper was written using the normative juridical method. Mergers that meet thresholds must be notified to the business competition authorities. Transactions that do not meet the thresholds and are thus free from notification obligations are referred to as non-reportable transactions. There are two types of notification systems, namely ex-ante, where notification is carried out prior to a transaction becoming legally effective, and ex-post where the notification is carried out after the transaction becomes effective. In 2023, the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) issued a preliminary ruling in the decision of ECJ Case C-449/21. A company named TDF conducted a non-reportable transaction as it merged with its competitor in the television broadcasting market, named Itas. Its other competitor, Towercast, reported the transaction as an abuse of dominant position and therefore must be re-assessed. The results of the preliminary ruling states that non-reportable transactions can be reviewed ex-post by business competition authorities. The ruling raises awareness that an abuse of a dominant position can potentially be conducted through non-reportable transactions."