LAWSUIT FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS OF EXECUTION OF FIDUCIARY GUARANTEES IN LEASE ACTIVITIES

J. Kosasih
{"title":"LAWSUIT FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS OF EXECUTION OF FIDUCIARY GUARANTEES IN LEASE ACTIVITIES","authors":"J. Kosasih","doi":"10.55637/elg.1.2.3940.109-118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 dated January 6, 2020, caused a polemic in practice, both among legal experts and business people. The Panel of Judges of the Constitutional Court (MK) made a phenomenal decision which abolished the institution for the execution of guarantees listed in Article 15 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law Number: 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees or known as parate executions. Parate Execution is a preferential right for the lessor in financing leasing in the event that the lessee commits an act of default. The decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) stated that the lessor's action was declared as an unlawful act on the execution of the guarantee stated in the fiduciary guarantee law. The aims of this research are to examine the (1) unlawful acts in contractual relationships in leasing activities and (2) the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) No 18/PUU-XVIII/2019 on the re-interpretation of the constitutionality of Article 15 paragraph (2) on the phrase “executory power” and “same as a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force”. This research is normative juridical with a conceptual approach, legislation and cases. The findings in the study explained that the panel of judges considered that the lessor’s action in withdrawing collateral that legally still belongs to the lessor given based on the principle of trust (fiduciary) is an act against the law and ignores the contractual relationship that occurs between the parties.","PeriodicalId":156004,"journal":{"name":"Journal Equity of Law and Governance","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal Equity of Law and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55637/elg.1.2.3940.109-118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 dated January 6, 2020, caused a polemic in practice, both among legal experts and business people. The Panel of Judges of the Constitutional Court (MK) made a phenomenal decision which abolished the institution for the execution of guarantees listed in Article 15 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law Number: 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees or known as parate executions. Parate Execution is a preferential right for the lessor in financing leasing in the event that the lessee commits an act of default. The decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) stated that the lessor's action was declared as an unlawful act on the execution of the guarantee stated in the fiduciary guarantee law. The aims of this research are to examine the (1) unlawful acts in contractual relationships in leasing activities and (2) the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) No 18/PUU-XVIII/2019 on the re-interpretation of the constitutionality of Article 15 paragraph (2) on the phrase “executory power” and “same as a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force”. This research is normative juridical with a conceptual approach, legislation and cases. The findings in the study explained that the panel of judges considered that the lessor’s action in withdrawing collateral that legally still belongs to the lessor given based on the principle of trust (fiduciary) is an act against the law and ignores the contractual relationship that occurs between the parties.
租赁活动中违法履行信义担保行为的诉讼
宪法法院于2020年1月6日作出的第18/PUU-XVII/2019号决定在实践中引发了法律专家和商界人士的争论。宪法法院法官小组作出了一项了不起的决定,废除了1999年第42号法律第15条第(2)款和第(3)款所列担保的执行机构,该法律关于信托担保或称为单独执行。平行执行权是融资租赁中出租人在承租人有违约行为时享有的优先权利。宪法法院(MK)的决定指出,出租人的行为被宣布为履行《信义担保法》所规定的担保的非法行为。本研究的目的是考察(1)租赁活动中合同关系中的非法行为和(2)宪法法院(MK)第18/PUU-XVIII/2019号关于重新解释第15条第(2)款关于“执行权力”和“与获得永久法律效力的法院判决相同”的合宪性的决定。本研究是规范性的司法与概念的方法,立法和案例。研究结果解释说,法官小组认为出租人撤回根据信托(信义)原则提供的在法律上仍属于出租人的抵押品的行为是一种违法行为,忽视了双方之间发生的合同关系。
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