Materi dan Prosedur Penetapan Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok, Studi Perbandingan: Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat

Mimbar Hukum Pub Date : 2018-06-15 DOI:10.22146/JMH.29054
Laras Susanti
{"title":"Materi dan Prosedur Penetapan Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok, Studi Perbandingan: Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat","authors":"Laras Susanti","doi":"10.22146/JMH.29054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Background of this article is, although it was first emerged in Common Law system countries, the practice of class action has been growing in Indonesia. This mechanism brings an opportunity to simplified the court’ process and to reduce the risk of disparity judgements. This article found similarities and differences scope and procedure of certification in Indonesia and the USA. Before examining the case, a presiding judges, accordingly to Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 Year 2002 concerning Procedure of Class Action, have to determine whether the case is eligible to be examine as class action case. This procedure is universally well-known as certification mainly focuses on the fulfilment of class action’s substantive requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation and formal requirements. The similar requirements are also implemented in the USA accordingly to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 Class Action. However, in those countries have different procedure when it comes to legal remedy to the certification order, mechanism to opt-out in case of settlement or withdrawal, the role of judge in assisting poor litigants and determining counsel’s fee. This article recommends Indonesia has to amend the Supreme Court regulation to add provisions on legal remedy, and mechanism to opt-out in case of settlement or withdrawal. ","PeriodicalId":30794,"journal":{"name":"Mimbar Hukum","volume":"118 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mimbar Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22146/JMH.29054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract. Background of this article is, although it was first emerged in Common Law system countries, the practice of class action has been growing in Indonesia. This mechanism brings an opportunity to simplified the court’ process and to reduce the risk of disparity judgements. This article found similarities and differences scope and procedure of certification in Indonesia and the USA. Before examining the case, a presiding judges, accordingly to Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 Year 2002 concerning Procedure of Class Action, have to determine whether the case is eligible to be examine as class action case. This procedure is universally well-known as certification mainly focuses on the fulfilment of class action’s substantive requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation and formal requirements. The similar requirements are also implemented in the USA accordingly to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 Class Action. However, in those countries have different procedure when it comes to legal remedy to the certification order, mechanism to opt-out in case of settlement or withdrawal, the role of judge in assisting poor litigants and determining counsel’s fee. This article recommends Indonesia has to amend the Supreme Court regulation to add provisions on legal remedy, and mechanism to opt-out in case of settlement or withdrawal. 
小组替代诉讼、比较研究的材料和程序:印度尼西亚和美国
摘要本文的研究背景是,虽然集体诉讼最早出现在英美法系国家,但在印度尼西亚的实践却越来越多。这一机制为简化法院程序和减少判决不一致的风险提供了机会。本文发现了印尼和美国在认证范围和程序上的异同。审判长在审理案件之前,根据大法院2002年第1号《集体诉讼程序》,决定案件是否符合集体诉讼审查的条件。这一程序是众所周知的,因为认证主要侧重于满足集体诉讼的实质性要求:数量、共性、典型性和充分的代表性和形式要求。美国也根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第23条集体诉讼规则实施了类似的要求。但是,这些国家在核证令的法律救济、和解或撤销时的选择退出机制、法官在协助贫困诉讼当事人和确定律师费方面的作用等方面都有不同的程序。本文建议印度尼西亚修改最高法院条例,增加法律救济的规定,以及在和解或撤销情况下选择退出的机制。
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
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信