<![CDATA[AbstrakSebagai otoritas persaingan usaha, KPPU memiliki kewenangan memeriksa dan memutusperkara pelanggaran Undang-Undang Persaingan Usaha. Di samping memutus perkara,KPPU juga memiliki tugas memberikan saran/rekomendasi demi perbaikan iklim persainganusaha. Dalam praktiknya, ada kalanya rekomendasi juga dimuat dalam putusan KPPUyang berkenaan dengan dugaan pelanggaran Undang-Undang Persaingan Usaha. Dengandemikian putusan KPPU bisa mengandung muatan imperatif maupun rekomendatif.Penelitian ini dimaksudkan untuk mengkaji muatan imperatif dan rekomendatif dalamputusan-putusan KPPU. Penelitian ini mengungkapkan bahwa kedua sifat konten putusanKPPU memang diperlukan dalam penegakan hukum yang bersifat komprehensif dan tidaksemata-mata menggunakan pendekatan represif. Mengingat sensitivitas dunia usahaterhadap regulasi, konten rekomendatif menjadi salah satu wahana yang juga tepat untukmendorong ketaatan (compliance) pihak-pihak terkait.AbstractAs a business competition organ, the Commission has the authority to examine and decidecases involving violations of Competition Law. Furthermore, the Commission also has thetask of providing advice/recommendation for the government and businesses to improvethe business competition climate. In practice, there are occassions when the recommendation is also contained in the Commission’s decision with regard to alleged violations of the Business Competition Law. Thus the decision of the Commission may contain imperative verdict well as recommendation. This study aimed to assess the imperatives and recommendation content in the Commission’s decisions. It was revealed that both content is required in a comprehensive law enforcement which was not simply based on repressive approach. Given the sensitivity of the business with regulations, the recommendations contained in the Commission’s decision may be used as an appropriate vehicle to encourage adherence (compliance) to Competition Law by related parties.]]>
Copyrights © 2016
