SANKSI HUKUM BERUPA GANTI RUGI AKIBAT PERBUATAN MELAWAN HUKUM DALAM PERSAINGAN USAHA (Analisis Putusan Perkara Nomor 22/KPPU-I/2016) - ach suringgana kusuma (Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Malang, 2020)
ABSTRAKPerbuatan melawan hukum dapat dikategorikan sebagai perjanjian tertutup dan penguasaan pasar yang merupakan salah satu perjanjian yang dapat mengakibatkan terjadinya praktik monopoli dan persaingan usaha tidak sehat. Sebagaimana PT. Tirta Investama yang melakukan larangan yang dilakukan sebagai pelaku usaha dengan memonopoli dan mengadakan perjanjian-perjanjian tertentu yang dapat mengakibatkan terjadinya praktik monopoli dan persaingan usaha tidak sehat. Permasalahan yang dibahas adalah apa saja syarat-syarat hukum yang harus dipenuhi suatu perbuatan persaingan usaha dapat dipandang sebagai perbuatan melawan hukum ? Apakah sanksi hukum berupa ganti rugi dapat diterapkan sebagai akibat perbuatan melawan hukum dalam persaingan usaha sebagaimana dalam Putusan Perkara Nomor 22/KPPU-I/2016. Syarat-syarat hukum yang harus dipenuhi suatu perbuatan persaingan usaha dapat dipandang sebagai perbuatan melawan hukum, yaitu apabila melanggar pasal 15, pasal 19 sampai dengan pasal 21 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat, Sanksi hukum berupa ganti rugi sebagai akibat perbuatan melawan hukum dalam persaingan usaha sebagaimana Putusan Perkara Nomor 22/KPPU-I/2016 termaktub dalam Pasal 15 ayat (3) huruf b Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 mengenai perjanjian tertutup dan Pasal 19 sampai dengan Pasal 21 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 mengenai kegiatan penguasaan pasar. Dengan sanksi hukuman sesuai dengan yang tertera dalam Pasal 47 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999.Kata Kunci: Ganti Rugi, Perbuatan Melawan Hukum, Persaingan Usaha. ABSTRACT Acts against the law can be categorized as a closed agreement and market domination which is one of the agreements that can result in monopolistic practices and unfair business competition. As PT. Tirta Investama, which carries out a ban carried out as a business actor by monopolizing and entering into certain agreements that may result in monopolistic practices and unfair business competition. The problem discussed is what are the legal requirements that must be fulfilled by an act of business competition can be seen as an act against the law? Whether legal sanctions in the form of compensation can be applied as a result of acts against the law in business competition as in Case Decision Number 22 / KPPU-I / 2016. The purpose of this study is to determine the legal requirements that must be fulfilled by an act of business competition can be seen as an act against the law. To find out legal sanctions in the form of compensation can be applied as a result of acts against the law in business competition as in Case Decision Number 22 / KPPU-I / 2016. The research method uses normative juridical, using primary, secondary and tertiary legal sources, and the analysis of the data is done in a descriptive qualitative manner. Legal requirements that must be fulfilled by an act of business competition can be seen as an act against the law, that is if it violates Article 15, Article 19 through Article 21 of Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, legal sanctions in the form of compensation as a result of acts against the law in business competition as Case Decision Number 22 / KPPU-I / 2016 contained in Article 15 paragraph (3) letter b of Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning closed agreements and Articles 19 through Article 21 of Law Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning market control activities. With sanctions according to what is stated in Article 47 of Law Number 5 Year 1999. Keywords: Compensation, Actions Against Law, Business Competition.