|
[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.] |
S59187-Yosep Butar.pdf :: Unduh