ANALISIS YURIDIS DAN PENGGUNAAN BUKTI TIDAK LANGSUNG (INDIRECT EVIDENCE) TERHADAP KASUS KARTEL SEKUTER MATIK 110-125 CC ANTARA HONDA DAN YAMAHA INDONESIA PERSAINGAN TIDAK SEHAT DITINJAU UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 5 TAHUN 1999 (Studi Putusan Nomor:04/KPPU-I/2016 JO Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Utara Nomor 163/Pdt.G/KPPU/2017/PN Jkt Utr)
| Main Author: | ADHIARTA, TIYON |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis NonPeerReviewed Book |
| Bahasa: | eng |
| Terbitan: |
, 2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
https://eprints.untirta.ac.id/1652/1/ANALISIS%20YURIDIS%20%20DAN%20PENGGUNAAN%20BUKTI%20TIDAK%20LANGSUNG%20%28INDIRECT%20EVIDENCE%29%20TERHADAP%20KASUS%20KARTEL%20SEKUTER%20MATIK%20110-125%20CC%20ANTARA%20HONDA%20DAN%20YAMAHA%20INDONESIA.pdf https://eprints.untirta.ac.id/1652/ https://fh.untirta.ac.id/ |
Daftar Isi:
- This study discusses the pricing of automatic scooter motorcycles which results in unfair business competition, including cartels and proof systems used in resolving cases in the perspective of business competition law based on Law No.5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition . Pricing agreements are violations that are difficult to prove because rarely or no pricing agreements are made in writing, it is difficult to find direct evidence of price fixing or cartel cases. Because of this, indirect evidence appears as evidence that KPPU uses to decide the case of the cartel. The indirect evidence used in the case of a motorcycle cartel is that there is a price movement indicating a similar trend among the reported parties. Two business actors that made a pricing agreement, namely PT. Yamaha Indonesia Motor Manufacturing as Reported Party I with PT. Astra Honda Motor as Reported Party II. Based on the case's decision, the researcher analyzed the success of the use of indirect evidence in terminating the case by KPPU and the importance of adding a separate article explaining in detail the meaning and classification of things that could be categorized as indirect evidence in Law Number 5 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopoly and Unfair Business Competition to provide legal certainty for business actors. This study uses a type of qualitative research using a juridical-normative research approach. Research conducted in addition to reviewing legislation, books, and journals (library research) related to this thesis. The direct interview research to support the evidence in this study, namely by interviewing the clerk in the Decision of the North Jakarta District Court Number 163 / Pdt.G / KPPU / 2017 / PN Jkt Utr.