Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI KARYAWAN TERKAIT HAK PESANGON DALAM PERJANJIAN KERJA ATAS PERUSAHAAN YANG DINYATAKAN PAILIT Susanti, Christina; Yuhelson, Yuhelson; Marni Emmy Mustafa
Journal of Innovation Research and Knowledge Vol. 4 No. 10: Maret 2025
Publisher : Bajang Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.53625/jirk.v4i10.9854

Abstract

Article 95 paragraph (1) of Law No. 6 of 2023 states that in the event that a company is declared bankrupt or liquidated based on the provisions of statutory regulations, wages and other rights that have not been received by workers/laborers are debts whose payment takes priority. However, the fact is that often when a company is declared bankrupt, employees do not receive severance pay rights as stated in the employment agreement. The problem formulation in this research is how to regulate and pay employee severance pay rights related to work agreements with companies that are declared bankrupt? And what is the legal protection for employees who do not receive severance pay rights as stipulated in their employment agreement with a company that has been declared bankrupt? The theories used in this research are the agreement theory according to Mariam Darus Badrulzaman and the legal protection theory according to Satjipto Raharjo.The method used in this research is normative juridical research in the form of library legal materials or secondary data with primary, secondary and tertiary sources of legal materials. The research approach used is statutory, conceptual, analytical and case approaches as well as techniques for collecting legal materials by identifying and inventorying positive legal rules, book literature, journals and other sources of legal materials. The analysis technique for legal materials is carried out using systematic legal interpretation, grammar, and analogy construction.The research results show that the arrangement and payment of employee severance pay rights related to work agreements with companies declared bankrupt are in accordance with the provisions of Article 95 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 156 paragraph (2) of the Manpower Law as amended by Law no. 6 of 2023 where the right to employee severance pay has a priority position or is often called preferred creditor which should be received in full before the company loses its authority to manage and transfer its assets by the curator. However, in practice, the right to severance pay for employees in companies declared bankrupt is still waived, this is because all assets are managed by separatist creditors as parties who have the authority to execute material collateral. Legal protection for employees who do not receive severance pay rights as stipulated in work agreements with companies declared bankrupt, namely in the form of repressive legal protection in the form of resolving disputes through litigation. In this case, employees who do not receive severance pay have the right to file a lawsuit against the company that has been declared bankrupt through the Commercial Court and take cassation and judicial review to obtain their rights as stipulated in the employment agreement and the provisions of statutory regulations.
PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP KREDITUR ATAS JAMINAN HAK GUNA BANGUNAN YANG TELAH BERAKHIR MASA BERLAKU DAN MASIH DIBEBANI HAK TANGGUNGAN Ramadhan, Muhammad Akbar; Yudha Cahya Kumala; Marni Emmy Mustafa
Journal of Innovation Research and Knowledge Vol. 5 No. 3: Agustus 2025
Publisher : Bajang Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Building Use Rights are one of the land rights regulated in the UUPA which can be used as an object of collateral for Mortgage Rights as regulated in the UUHT. The phenomenon that occurs when objects of Mortgage Rights are guaranteed with the status of Building Use Rights whose validity period has expired results in the abolition of the Mortgage Rights as stated in Article 18 paragraph (1) letter d UUHT. This research aims to formulate the problem, namely: What is the legal protection for creditors against building use rights collateral objects that have expired and are still encumbered with mortgage rights? And what are the legal consequences for land collateral objects with Building Use Rights that have expired and are still encumbered with Mortgage Rights? The theory used in this research is the Legal Protection Theory according to Satjipto Rahardjo, the Legal Consequences Theory according to Soeroso. The method used in this research is normative juridical (library law research or secondary data with primary, secondary and tertiary sources of legal materials). The research approaches used are statutory, conceptual, case and analytical approaches with legal material collection techniques carried out by identifying and inventorying legal rules, book literature and other legal materials. Legal material analysis techniques are carried out using grammatical legal interpretation and systematic interpretation. From the results of the research, it was concluded that legal protection for creditors with HGB status collateral objects which have expired before the credit matures is by providing a credit period that is shorter than the validity period of the rights status, extending rights at the initial time of the credit agreement or extending credit by making a power of attorney. to the bank, change the rights from HGB to Ownership Rights, and ask for replacement collateral or additional collateral. As well as recharging Mortgage Rights on land objects of collateral which have expired and have been renewed within the credit period. The legal consequences of ending the rights status of HGB collateral objects which are still encumbered with Liability Rights will result in the abolition of the Mortgage Rights (Article 18 paragraph (1) letter d UUHT). Thus changing the position of creditors holding Mortgage Rights from preferred creditors to concurrent creditors who have individual rights which are rights arising from general guarantees regulated by Article 1131 of the Civil Code.
PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP PEMEGANG MEREK AWAL ATAS PASSING OFF PRODUK SKINCARE Yusuf, Taufik; Marni Emmy Mustafa; Achmad Fitrian
Journal of Innovation Research and Knowledge Vol. 4 No. 3: Agustus 2024
Publisher : Bajang Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.53625/jirk.v4i3.8365

Abstract

Undang-undang Nomor 20 tahun 2016 Tentang merek dan indikasi geografis, memberikan perlindungan hukum terhada merek dan menjamin kepastian hukum. Suatu merek harus di daftarkan, sebagaimana diatur dalam pasal 3 Undang-undang Merek. Pendaftaran yang memenuhi persyaratan sesuai dengan undang-undang akan mendapatkan pengakuan dan pembenaran atas penggunaan merek, dapat dibuktikan dengan sertifikat pendaftaran, sehingga memperoleh perlindungan hukum. Namun prakteknya masih terdapat pelanggaran merek berupa tindakan meniru, menjiplak, maupun memboceng ketenaran merek orang lain lebih terkenal atau yang terdaftar terlebih dahulu sehingga menimbulkan kebingungan dan menyesatkan masyarakat. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pelanggaran terhadap hak merek motivasinya adalah untuk mendapatkan keuntungan secara mudah dengan mencoba meniru, atau memalsukan merek yang sudah terkenal terlebih dahulu, tindakan tersebut dapat merugikan masyarakat baik terhadap produsen maupun konsumennya. Akibat hukum bagi pelaku pemakaian merek yang memiliki persamaan pada pokoknya dengan merek lain yaitu penghentian semua perbuatan yang berkaitan dengan penggunaan merek tersebut (penghapusan merek). Perlindungan hukum terhadap MS Glow dalam pendaftaran merek berdasarkan prinsip first to file dalam hal ini belum berjalan efektif. First to file mengisyaratkan bahwa pemegang merek yang pertama kali mendaftarkan mereknya mendapatkan perlindungan secara hukum. Undang-Undang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis juga menyatakan bahwa merek tidak dapat didaftarkan jika merek tersebut pada pokoknya memiliki kesamaan dengan merek yang telah terdaftar. Kenyataannya yang terjadi adalah merek MS Glow dan PS Glow merupakan merek yang sama-sama telah terdaftar pada DJKI, dimana sengketa didasarkan karena kesamaan nama pada merek antara keduanya.