LEGAL EFFORTS OF EXECUTION APPLICATION AGAINST JOINT TREATMENT DECISIONS (Study of the Implementation of Decisions on the Decisions of Religious Courts Number: 0701 / Pdt.G / 2014 / PA.Mlg)

Tinuk Dwi Cahyani
{"title":"LEGAL EFFORTS OF EXECUTION APPLICATION AGAINST JOINT TREATMENT DECISIONS (Study of the Implementation of Decisions on the Decisions of Religious Courts Number: 0701 / Pdt.G / 2014 / PA.Mlg)","authors":"Tinuk Dwi Cahyani","doi":"10.24269/LS.V3I1.1802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Case Number: 0701 / Pdt.G / 2014 / PA.Mlg is the product of the Malang Religious Court which has permanent legal force. In fact, after the ruling gets permanent legal force, it is known that the parties have a joint debt which causes problems for the parties who are responsible for paying off the joint debt if the decision only regulates the share of each of these assets. The problems in this study are: 1) The judge's decision regarding the division of joint assets in terms of legal certainty and justice in the decision Number: 0701 / Pdt.G / 2014 / PA.Mlg. 2) The implementation of sharing the shared assets 3) The implementation of shared debt division if there is no decision by the judge, in fact there is a joint debt. The author uses an empirical juridical research method located in the Malang Religious Court. Primary data is obtained by interviewing the Head and the Registrar of the Malang Religious Court and the Judge who handled the case Number: 0701 / Pdt.G / 2014 / PA.Mlg and the secondary data is obtained from research and literature review which consisted of laws and other legal materials which are relevant. Regarding the opinion of the Panel of Judges on the decision of 0701 / Pdt.G /2014 / PA.Mlg it can be learned from legal considerations in the a quo decision. In general, the principles of justice and legal certainty must be upheld. Justice must be upheld in accordance with the provisions of Article 35 to 37 of Act Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage, Article 85 up to Article 97 of the Compilation of Islamic Law.","PeriodicalId":193148,"journal":{"name":"Legal Standing : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum","volume":"104 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Standing : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24269/LS.V3I1.1802","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Case Number: 0701 / Pdt.G / 2014 / PA.Mlg is the product of the Malang Religious Court which has permanent legal force. In fact, after the ruling gets permanent legal force, it is known that the parties have a joint debt which causes problems for the parties who are responsible for paying off the joint debt if the decision only regulates the share of each of these assets. The problems in this study are: 1) The judge's decision regarding the division of joint assets in terms of legal certainty and justice in the decision Number: 0701 / Pdt.G / 2014 / PA.Mlg. 2) The implementation of sharing the shared assets 3) The implementation of shared debt division if there is no decision by the judge, in fact there is a joint debt. The author uses an empirical juridical research method located in the Malang Religious Court. Primary data is obtained by interviewing the Head and the Registrar of the Malang Religious Court and the Judge who handled the case Number: 0701 / Pdt.G / 2014 / PA.Mlg and the secondary data is obtained from research and literature review which consisted of laws and other legal materials which are relevant. Regarding the opinion of the Panel of Judges on the decision of 0701 / Pdt.G /2014 / PA.Mlg it can be learned from legal considerations in the a quo decision. In general, the principles of justice and legal certainty must be upheld. Justice must be upheld in accordance with the provisions of Article 35 to 37 of Act Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage, Article 85 up to Article 97 of the Compilation of Islamic Law.
对共同处理决定执行申请的法律努力(宗教法院判决执行情况研究,编号:0701 / Pdt)。G / 2014 / PA.Mlg)
案例编号:0701 / Pdt。G / 2014 / pa。Mlg是具有永久法律效力的玛琅宗教法庭的产物。事实上,在判决具有永久法律效力后,众所周知,当事人有共同债务,如果判决只规定了这些资产的份额,就会给负责偿还共同债务的当事人带来麻烦。本研究的问题是:1)法官在第0701 / Pdt号判决书中关于共同财产分割的法律确定性和公正性的判决。G / 2014 / PA.Mlg3)实行共同债务分割如果没有经过法官的判决,实际上就存在共同债务。本文采用实证的司法研究方法,选址于麻郎宗教法院。主要资料是通过采访马朗宗教法院院长和书记官长以及处理案件的法官获得的,案件编号:0701 / Pdt。G / 2014 / pa。Mlg和次要数据是从研究和文献综述中获得的,这些文献综述由法律和其他相关的法律材料组成。关于法官小组对第0701 / Pdt号决定的意见。G /2014 / pa。不过,这可以从现状决定中的法律考虑中学到。总的来说,正义和法律确定性的原则必须得到维护。必须根据1974年关于婚姻的第1号法令第35条至第37条、《伊斯兰教法汇编》第85条至第97条的规定维护正义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信