对航空运输部门价格确定协议的制裁(KPPU裁决15/ kppui - /2019)

IF 0.4 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Alya Nurfitriyah, Mustolih Siradj, Indra Rahmatullah
{"title":"对航空运输部门价格确定协议的制裁(KPPU裁决15/ kppui - /2019)","authors":"Alya Nurfitriyah, Mustolih Siradj, Indra Rahmatullah","doi":"10.15408/jlr.v4i6.21595","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study discusses the sanctions imposed by the KPPU in the price fixing agreement and how the Commission Council considers the price fixing agreement. This research uses normative legal research, with the research approach used in this study using a statutory approach and a case approach and the data collection method in this research is library research. The results of this study are that the administrative sanctions imposed on the Reported Parties in this decision are only to notify the Business Competition Supervisory Commission in writing before taking any business actor policies that will affect the business competition map. The reported parties should be subject to administrative sanctions in the form of fines. However, due to the ratification of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation, especially Article 48 and also Article 49 concerning additional penalties in this Law, it was removed. Then, according to Article 5 of Government Regulation Number 44 of 2021, especially in paragraph (1) letter c, the Commission Council in deciding this case considered a clear reason, namely the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. So, the Reported Parties in this case were only given administrative sanctions and they were not given. Then, in deciding the case, the Commission Council considered it from the philosophical, sociological and juridical aspects.","PeriodicalId":40374,"journal":{"name":"ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SANKSI TERHADAP PERJANJIAN PENETAPAN HARGA (PRICE FIXING) PADA SEKTOR JASA PENGANGKUTAN UDARA (Analisis Putusan KPPU Nomor 15/KPPU-I/2019)\",\"authors\":\"Alya Nurfitriyah, Mustolih Siradj, Indra Rahmatullah\",\"doi\":\"10.15408/jlr.v4i6.21595\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study discusses the sanctions imposed by the KPPU in the price fixing agreement and how the Commission Council considers the price fixing agreement. This research uses normative legal research, with the research approach used in this study using a statutory approach and a case approach and the data collection method in this research is library research. The results of this study are that the administrative sanctions imposed on the Reported Parties in this decision are only to notify the Business Competition Supervisory Commission in writing before taking any business actor policies that will affect the business competition map. The reported parties should be subject to administrative sanctions in the form of fines. However, due to the ratification of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation, especially Article 48 and also Article 49 concerning additional penalties in this Law, it was removed. Then, according to Article 5 of Government Regulation Number 44 of 2021, especially in paragraph (1) letter c, the Commission Council in deciding this case considered a clear reason, namely the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. So, the Reported Parties in this case were only given administrative sanctions and they were not given. Then, in deciding the case, the Commission Council considered it from the philosophical, sociological and juridical aspects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40374,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15408/jlr.v4i6.21595\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15408/jlr.v4i6.21595","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究讨论了KPPU在价格垄断协议中施加的制裁,以及欧盟委员会理事会如何考虑价格垄断协议。本研究采用规范性法律研究,研究方法采用法定法和案例法,数据收集方法采用图书馆法。本研究的结果是,本决定中对被报告方的行政处罚仅在采取任何影响商业竞争地图的商业行为者政策之前以书面形式通知商业竞争监督管理委员会。被举报的当事人应当受到罚款的行政处罚。但是,由于批准了2020年关于创造就业机会的第11号法,特别是第48条和第49条关于该法的附加处罚,它被删除了。然后,根据2021年第44号政府法规第5条,特别是第(1)款c字母,委员会理事会在决定该案件时考虑了一个明确的原因,即2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行。因此,在这个案例中,被报告方只受到行政制裁,而没有受到行政制裁。然后,在决定案件时,委员会理事会从哲学、社会学和法律方面进行了审议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
SANKSI TERHADAP PERJANJIAN PENETAPAN HARGA (PRICE FIXING) PADA SEKTOR JASA PENGANGKUTAN UDARA (Analisis Putusan KPPU Nomor 15/KPPU-I/2019)
This study discusses the sanctions imposed by the KPPU in the price fixing agreement and how the Commission Council considers the price fixing agreement. This research uses normative legal research, with the research approach used in this study using a statutory approach and a case approach and the data collection method in this research is library research. The results of this study are that the administrative sanctions imposed on the Reported Parties in this decision are only to notify the Business Competition Supervisory Commission in writing before taking any business actor policies that will affect the business competition map. The reported parties should be subject to administrative sanctions in the form of fines. However, due to the ratification of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation, especially Article 48 and also Article 49 concerning additional penalties in this Law, it was removed. Then, according to Article 5 of Government Regulation Number 44 of 2021, especially in paragraph (1) letter c, the Commission Council in deciding this case considered a clear reason, namely the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. So, the Reported Parties in this case were only given administrative sanctions and they were not given. Then, in deciding the case, the Commission Council considered it from the philosophical, sociological and juridical aspects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
×
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