Tender Conspiracy Under KPPU Decision and Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices Act

Q3 Social Sciences
Udin Silalahi, Priskilla Chrysentia
{"title":"Tender Conspiracy Under KPPU Decision and Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices Act","authors":"Udin Silalahi, Priskilla Chrysentia","doi":"10.28946/SLREV.VOL4.ISS2.347.PP91-108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tender conspiracy is one of the anti-competition acts prohibited under Article 22 Law No. 5 of 1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. As one of the violations which are almost always injurious, tender conspiracy is only regulated by a rule of reasonable approach giving an interpretation room of the consequences of the violation. The tender conspiracy is also proven conducted by reported parties in the case that it had been decided by KPPU, such as in the KPPU Decision Number 06/KPPU-L/2015. The questions arising in connection with the rampant practices of tender conspiracy are how they regulate in the applicable law and how KPPU decides on the practice of tender conspiracy in the case concerned with the law. The aim is to examine the causes of the rampant practice of tender conspiracy in relation to the regulations governing it, as well as to review the KPPU's decision on real tender conspiracy case. For this reason, this research is normative legal research with qualitative analysis techniques on secondary data and uses the statute approach, and case approaches. The results of the study indicate that Article 22  is not sufficient yet to regulate the prohibition of tender conspiracy and often leads to multi-interpretation. the KPPU decided that there is a horizontal conspiracy among defendantsindetermining of the tender winner","PeriodicalId":32073,"journal":{"name":"Sriwijaya Law Review","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sriwijaya Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28946/SLREV.VOL4.ISS2.347.PP91-108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Tender conspiracy is one of the anti-competition acts prohibited under Article 22 Law No. 5 of 1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. As one of the violations which are almost always injurious, tender conspiracy is only regulated by a rule of reasonable approach giving an interpretation room of the consequences of the violation. The tender conspiracy is also proven conducted by reported parties in the case that it had been decided by KPPU, such as in the KPPU Decision Number 06/KPPU-L/2015. The questions arising in connection with the rampant practices of tender conspiracy are how they regulate in the applicable law and how KPPU decides on the practice of tender conspiracy in the case concerned with the law. The aim is to examine the causes of the rampant practice of tender conspiracy in relation to the regulations governing it, as well as to review the KPPU's decision on real tender conspiracy case. For this reason, this research is normative legal research with qualitative analysis techniques on secondary data and uses the statute approach, and case approaches. The results of the study indicate that Article 22  is not sufficient yet to regulate the prohibition of tender conspiracy and often leads to multi-interpretation. the KPPU decided that there is a horizontal conspiracy among defendantsindetermining of the tender winner
KPPU决定与《禁止垄断行为法》下的投标串谋
投标串谋是1999年《禁止垄断行为和不正当商业竞争法》第22条所禁止的反竞争行为之一。作为一种几乎总是有害的违法行为,投标串谋仅受合理做法规则的管制,为违法行为的后果提供了解释空间。在由KPPU决定的情况下,如KPPU第06/KPPU- l /2015号决定,投标串谋也被报告方证明是进行的。投标串谋行为的猖獗所引起的问题是如何在适用法律中加以规范,以及KPPU如何在涉及法律的情况下对投标串谋行为作出裁决。目的是研究投标串谋行为猖獗的原因,并与规范有关,以及审查KPPU对真实投标串谋案件的决定。因此,本研究是规范性的法律研究,采用二手数据的定性分析技术,并采用法规方法和案例方法。研究结果表明,第22条尚不足以规范投标串谋的禁止,往往导致多重解释。KPPU认为,被告之间存在横向阴谋,以决定中标者
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
Sriwijaya Law Review
Sriwijaya Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信