Doktrin Single Economic Entity dalam Perluasan Pengawasan Persaingan Usaha secara Ekstrateritorial di Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22225/juinhum.5.3.11461.1326-1336Keywords:
Single economic entity, Extraterritorial jurisdiction, Competition lawAbstract
The ambiguity of the single economic entity doctrine in Indonesian competition law leads to the perception that it is neither recognized nor applied, hindering enforcement. To avoid formal debates on absolute competence and reduce legal voids causing uncertainty, explicit and written regulation of this doctrine is necessary. As a civil law country, the inability of foreign holding companies to be accountable for anti-competitive control over subsidiaries creates legal uncertainty. Ideal parameters for assessing a single economic entity include economic interest relationships through share ownership and joint ventures, and business decision independence. Controlled entities are viewed as representatives of controlling entities. The doctrine aims to identify primary anti-competitive actors. If controllers prove the absence of anti-competitive instructions, they may be exempt from accusations. Penalties for controlling entities should not exceed those for controlled entities.
References
Cleynenbreugel, Pieter Van, “Single Entity Tests in U.S. Antitrust and EU Competition Law”, KU Leuven - Faculty of Law, SSRN e-Library Database Search Results, Posted 20 Juli 2011
Corlu, Husyein Cagri. (2021). Extraterritorial Application of US Antitrust Rules: Ambiguities Old and New, Law & Justice Review, Necmettin Erbakan University, Vol. 12, Edisi 22.
Fachri Mohamad & Wimbanu Widyatmoko “The Emerging Single Economic Entity Doktrin in Indonesia”, diakses dari http://ww.asialawprofiles.com/article/2041103 diunduh pada tanggal 24 Mei 2015
Geradin, Damien, Marc Reysen, dan David Henry, Extraterritoriality, Comity and Cooperation in EC Competition Law, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1175003, Diakses pada tanggal 05 Juni 2023.
Horwitz, M. (1992). The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960: The Crisis of Legal orthodoxy Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaysen, Carl & Donald F. Turner, (1959). Antitrust Policy: An Economic & Legal Analysis, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Magaisa, (2002). Corporate Groups and Victims of Corporate Torts: Towards a New Architecture of Corporate Law in a Dynamic Marketplace, Law, Social Justice & Global Development Journal,
Muchlinski, Peter, (1995). Multinational Enterprises and the Law, edisi pertama, Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Ltd Blackwell Publisher.
Oktaviano, Ahmad Alfa dan Ditha Wiradiputra, “Dampak Prinsip Ekstrateritorial Terhadap Regulasi Merger, Konsolidasi, dan Akuisisi Dalam Hukum Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia”, http://www.lib.ui.ac.id/naskahringkas/2 016-06/S56456- Ahmad%20Alfa%20Oktaviano, diakses 25 Februari 2020
Permanent Court of International Justice, France v. Turkey, ser. A No. 10, 7 September 1927.
Putusan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) pada Perkara Nomor 07/KPPU-I/2007 tentang KPPU melawan Temasek
Putusan Komisi Pengawasan Persaingan Usaha, (2008). Putusan Nomor Nomor: 03/KPPU-L/2008, KPPU melawan PT Direct Vision, Astro All Asia Networks Plc, ESPN Sports, dan All Asia Multimedia Networks.
Toha, Kurnia. (2019). Urgensi Amandemen UU Tentang Persaingan Usaha Di Indonesia: Problem dan Tantangan, Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, Vol 49, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol49.no1.1911
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Dirwansyah Dirwansyah

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.





