Albert Ben Affendy, Arbina Florenchia, Dinda Evita, Ella Lirpa Simaremare
{"title":"实施政府招标的商业竞争","authors":"Albert Ben Affendy, Arbina Florenchia, Dinda Evita, Ella Lirpa Simaremare","doi":"10.24269/ls.v4i2.2896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) has the authority to examine and decide on alleged violations of business competition in tenders under Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices. The results of the study of Case Verdict Number: 34 / KPPU-L / 2009 are that there are several facts that business actors have violated Article 22 of Law Number 5 of 1999 that fulfills elements of conspiracy, the form of conspiracy is vertical collusion and conspiracy horizontal. In Case Decision Number 34 / KPPU-L / 2009 it is shown that a violation of business competition has Elements that can determine that there is an unfair business practice, in this case it is stated that Reported I, Reported II, Reported III, Reported IV, Reported V, Reported VI was proven to have been legally and convinced to have carried out a tender conspiracy. The formulation of the problem in the research is an analysis of the authority of the KPPU and the elements of a tender conspiracy. The type of research that was used in this journal were the Normative Research Type, and the data collection technique used is the literature study","PeriodicalId":193148,"journal":{"name":"Legal Standing : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"BUSINESS COMPETITION IN IMPLEMENTATION GOVERNMENT TENDER\",\"authors\":\"Albert Ben Affendy, Arbina Florenchia, Dinda Evita, Ella Lirpa Simaremare\",\"doi\":\"10.24269/ls.v4i2.2896\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) has the authority to examine and decide on alleged violations of business competition in tenders under Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices. The results of the study of Case Verdict Number: 34 / KPPU-L / 2009 are that there are several facts that business actors have violated Article 22 of Law Number 5 of 1999 that fulfills elements of conspiracy, the form of conspiracy is vertical collusion and conspiracy horizontal. In Case Decision Number 34 / KPPU-L / 2009 it is shown that a violation of business competition has Elements that can determine that there is an unfair business practice, in this case it is stated that Reported I, Reported II, Reported III, Reported IV, Reported V, Reported VI was proven to have been legally and convinced to have carried out a tender conspiracy. The formulation of the problem in the research is an analysis of the authority of the KPPU and the elements of a tender conspiracy. The type of research that was used in this journal were the Normative Research Type, and the data collection technique used is the literature study\",\"PeriodicalId\":193148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal Standing : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-10\",\"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.v4i2.2896\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Standing : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24269/ls.v4i2.2896","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
商业竞争监督委员会(KPPU)有权根据1999年关于禁止垄断行为的第5号法审查和决定投标中涉嫌违反商业竞争的行为。对第34 / kpu - l / 2009号判决书的研究结果表明,商业行为者违反1999年第5号法第22条构成共谋要件的若干事实,共谋的形式为纵向共谋和横向共谋。在第34 / kpu - l / 2009号案件决定中,表明违反商业竞争具有可以确定存在不公平商业行为的要素,在这种情况下,报告I,报告II,报告III,报告IV,报告V,报告VI被证明是合法的,并被说服进行了投标阴谋。在研究中,问题的表述是对KPPU的权威和投标阴谋要素的分析。本刊采用的研究类型为规范研究型,采用的数据收集技术为文献研究型
BUSINESS COMPETITION IN IMPLEMENTATION GOVERNMENT TENDER
The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) has the authority to examine and decide on alleged violations of business competition in tenders under Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices. The results of the study of Case Verdict Number: 34 / KPPU-L / 2009 are that there are several facts that business actors have violated Article 22 of Law Number 5 of 1999 that fulfills elements of conspiracy, the form of conspiracy is vertical collusion and conspiracy horizontal. In Case Decision Number 34 / KPPU-L / 2009 it is shown that a violation of business competition has Elements that can determine that there is an unfair business practice, in this case it is stated that Reported I, Reported II, Reported III, Reported IV, Reported V, Reported VI was proven to have been legally and convinced to have carried out a tender conspiracy. The formulation of the problem in the research is an analysis of the authority of the KPPU and the elements of a tender conspiracy. The type of research that was used in this journal were the Normative Research Type, and the data collection technique used is the literature study