Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
2.488
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal E-Dimas: Jurnal Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Khairun Law Journal SULUH: Jurnal Abdimas Jurnal Bakti Masyarakat Indonesia KHAIRUN LAW JOURNAL Pancasila and Law Review Ius Poenale COMSERVA: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Prosiding Seri Seminar Nasional Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, Pendidikan Dan Humaniora Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains Jurnal Riset Rumpun Ilmu Sosial, Politik dan Humaniora (JURRISH) Jurnal Sains Student Research Jurnal Serina Abdimas Jurnal ISO: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, Politik dan Humaniora
Yunan Prasetyo Kurniawan
Universitas Pancasila
Agriculture, Biological Sciences & Forestry Humanities Astronomy Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology Chemistry Civil Engineering, Building, Construction & Architecture Computer Science & IT Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Earth & Planetary Sciences Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Electrical & Electronics Engineering Energy Engineering Environmental Science Health Professions Immunology & microbiology Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Library & Information Science Materials Science & Nanotechnology Neuroscience Physics Public Health Social Sciences Other

Published : 20 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : khairun law journal

 1 
Disparitas Pemahaman Hakim dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen (Kajian Putusan No. 350 K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016 dan NO.10/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016/PN.Plk) Rifkiyati Bachri; Yunan Prasetyo Kurniawan
Khairun Law Journal Vol 1, No 2 (2018): Volume 1 Issue 2, March 2018
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Khairun University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (911.434 KB) | DOI: 10.33387/klj.v1i2.1881

Abstract

Judge decision NO. 350 K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016 and Judge decision NO.10/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016/PN.Plk are 2 (two) of the 127 (one hundred and twenty seven) verdicts of BPSK annulled by the Supreme Court (MA) on October 27, 2017. Where MA argued the two verdicts were not the authority of BPSK. Thus, problems arise whether the decision NO. 350 K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016 and the decision NO.10/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016/PN.Plk are the competence of BPSK in resolving consumer disputes or not. To answer these problems, normative legal research methods are used, so that the conclusion is that the verdict NO.10/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016/PN.Plk is not the Palangkaraya BPSK competency in deciding because Sancho is not the final consumer protected by UUPK, so if the Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Palangkaraya BPSK is true. Meanwhile, verdict NO. 350 K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016 is true Coal BPSK competency to decide consumer disputes because Dermasnyah Pane is the final consumer protected by UUPK, so if the Supreme Court annulled the decision of Coal BPSK is not true.
Disparitas Pemahaman Hakim dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen (Kajian Putusan No. 350 K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016 dan NO.10/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016/PN.Plk) Rifkiyati Bachri; Yunan Prasetyo Kurniawan
Khairun Law Journal Vol 1 No 2 (2018): Volume 1 Issue 2, March 2018
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Khairun University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33387/klj.v1i2.1881

Abstract

Judge decision NO. 350 K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016 and Judge decision NO.10/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016/PN.Plk are 2 (two) of the 127 (one hundred and twenty seven) verdicts of BPSK annulled by the Supreme Court (MA) on October 27, 2017. Where MA argued the two verdicts were not the authority of BPSK. Thus, problems arise whether the decision NO. 350 K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016 and the decision NO.10/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016/PN.Plk are the competence of BPSK in resolving consumer disputes or not. To answer these problems, normative legal research methods are used, so that the conclusion is that the verdict NO.10/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016/PN.Plk is not the Palangkaraya BPSK competency in deciding because Sancho is not the final consumer protected by UUPK, so if the Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Palangkaraya BPSK is true. Meanwhile, verdict NO. 350 K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2016 is true Coal BPSK competency to decide consumer disputes because Dermasnyah Pane is the final consumer protected by UUPK, so if the Supreme Court annulled the decision of Coal BPSK is not true.
Co-Authors Adnan Hamid alma, aurellia Andi Chenning Nisa Islami Annisa Fitri Aprilia Silvi Suciana Arsil, Thomas athalla, muhammad fakhri Bagja, Muhammad Soleh Cipta Indralestari Rachman Diani Kesuma, Diani Dimas Maulana Nugroho Dimas Maulana Nugroho Endra Wijaya Fitri Aishah Hamidah, Wanda Henri Christian Pattinaja Henri Christian Pattinaja Jasmine, Zalika Averil Kunthi Tridewiyanti Lisda Syamsumardian Meutia, Febri Muhamad Fahkri Athalla Muhammad Soleh Bagja Naomi Dominique Hutahaean Nisa Islami, Andi Chenning Rafika Aprilia Rifkiyati Bachri Rury Octaviani Salwa Ummu Fazya Sekar Wangi, Tiara Ayu Shavira Ayunaida Sheren Zhahrina Navtalya Siti Nurhalizza Syahirah Tarsono, Edy Theo Andreas Zakia Syarika Zulkifli Zhenia Maulida Fitri