scholarly journals On initiative of Supreme Court of Cassation for amendments to the Civil Procedure Code

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 117-140
Author(s):  
Nikola Bodiroga
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Main Role ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
General Importance ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
New Interpretation

The current Civil Procedure Code has been in force since February 1, 2012. Its provisions dealing with a special procedure for the protection of collective interests, provisions regulating legal counsel, and provisions related to deadline for requesting reopening of proceedings have been quashed by the Constitutional Court. Signifi cant changes to the Civil Procedure Code have been passed by the Serbian Parliament in 2014. According to these changes, appeal on points of law has become widely accessible for parties to the proceedings. The threshold for lodging this extraordinary legal remedy has been reduced from 100.000 to 40.000 euros in the general procedure, and from 300.000 euros to 100.000 euros in commercial disputes. Regardless of that threshold, appeal on the points of law has become admissible if the second instance court has reversed the judgment of the first instance court and if the second instance court has adopted appeal, quashed the judgement of the first instance court and decided on the claims of the parties. If these conditions for lodging appeal on the points of law have not been met, a party may lodge an appeal on the points of law if the Supreme Court of Cassation declares this legal remedy admissible in order to unify jurisprudence, or to provide new interpretation of the law, or to consider some other issues of general importance. These legislative changes have turned appeal on the points of law into ordinary legal remedy and prevented the Supreme Court of Cassation to perform its main role in our judicial system. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Cassation has proposed necessary changes to the Civil Procedure Code. In this paper, we have analysed these proposals and their impact on the protection of rights of the parties.

scholarly journals Mewujudkan Keadilan Melalui Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 328
Author(s):  
M. Lutfi Chakim
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Pros And Cons

The reconsideration is an extraordinary legal remedy to the decision of Court that have legally binding (inkracht van gewisjde). The Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013 stated that extraordinary legal remedy aims to obtain justice and truth material, so the provisions of Article 268 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code states that, “request reconsideration of a decision can only be done once only” contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding force. The decision of Constitutional Court raises the pros and cons, on one side there are statements that reconsideration more than once is an effort to protect the rights of the public in obtaining justice, but on the other side there are statements that reconsideration is more than once is a violation of the principle of legal certainty. After analyzing the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013  it could be concluded that, first, the reconsideration is more than once in accordance with the public interest to obtain justice in law enforcement, because in obtaining justice and truth material can not be limited by time. Second, the decision of the Constitutional Court are final and binding, despite raises the pros and cons, then all are required to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court is expected to soon complete the Regulation of the Supreme Court about filing reconsideration in criminal cases by adjusting the decision of the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals ASPEK HUKUM PENINJAUAN KEMBALI LEBIH DARI SATU KALI DALAM PERKARA PIDANA (PERSPEKTIF PENEGAKAN KEADILAN, KEPASTIAN DAN KEMANFAATAN HUKUM)

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 335
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Matters

Constitutional Court Decision No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013 has opened the space PK is not just one time as provided for by the Article 268 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code so that PK can be done many times during found and submission of PK Novum although it has done previously. Perspective is the basis of this decision is justice. Responding to the verdict of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court publishes SEMA No. 7 Year 2014 on Reconsideration Request Submission In Criminal Case. Through the SEMA Supreme Court warned that provisions PK only once outside the Article 268 Criminal Procedure Code which was canceled by the Constitutional Court, therefore, PK criminal cases (in a similar case) is more than 1 (one) can not be accepted. Restrictions on the desired PK criminal case the Supreme Court is to provide legal certainty in the process of final settlement of criminal matters. Government through Minister of Law and Human Rights take strategic steps in resolving the legal expediency vision polemic filing legal remedies PK criminal cases, by coordinating state agencies and relevant ministries so as to produce an agreement that filing PK many times can not be executed until the issuance of PP. Therefore still valid set forth in the Judicial Authority Law and the Law on the Supreme Court.Keywords : Legal Aspects, Reconsideration, Criminal Case

scholarly journals Tinjauan Yuridis Pengajuan Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali pada Perkara Pidana dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-105
Author(s):  
I Made Widi Adi Peremana ◽  
A. A. Sagung Laksmi Dewi ◽  
Ni Made Sukaryati Karma
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Library Research ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Circular Letter ◽  
The Republic

The study of this research is the submission of requests for reconsideration in criminal cases in the Indonesian legal system which became a polemic after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 34 / XI-PUU / 2013 and Circular Letter of the Supreme Court (SEMA) Number 7 of 2014 concerning Submission of Reappeals in Cases Criminal. The research objectives to be achieved, in this case, are the regulation of legal reconsideration efforts in Indonesia and the procedure for submitting a request for review in the Indonesian system. Researchers use a normative juridical approach or library research or doctrinal legal research which can be interpreted as legal research by examining library materials and secondary materials. This study illustrates that the regulations for reconsideration in the legal system in Indonesia are based on various regulations, namely Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code, Law No. 3 of 2009 concerning the Supreme Court, Law no. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 7 of 2014 concerning Review of Criminal Cases and Submission of Reconsiderations at this time refers to the provisions of the Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 7 of 2014 concerning Reconsideration in Criminal Cases.  

scholarly journals ITIKAD BAIK DALAM PROSES MEDIASI PERKARA PERDATA DI PENGADILAN

Media Iuris ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 200
Author(s):  
Ajrina Yuka Ardhira ◽  
Ghansham Anand
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Consequences

Mediation is a duty which must be taken by the parties wishing to settle its dispute in the Court as specified in the Civil Procedure Code and in accordance with Article 130 HIR and 154 RGB. To improve the regulation of mediation in the Court, the Supreme Court shall issue its Regulation, namely the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2016 on Mediation Procedures in the Court. Where the regulations on mediation as stipulated in the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2016 use good faith in its formal conditions. And with such a condition the Supreme Court expects the success rate of mediation in the first level to increase so as to reduce the number of cases accumulated at the Supreme Court. Good faith as a duty to the parties in the Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 Year 2016 is made clear in Article 7 paragraph (1), where there are legal consequences for parties that are considered not having good intentions by doing things listed in Article 7 paragraph (2) , namely Article 22 for the plaintiff and Article 23 for the defendant. 

scholarly journals ANALISIS UPAYA HUKUM KASASI OLEH JAKSA PENUNTUT UMUM TERHADAP PUTUSAN BEBAS

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
Munarty Munarty ◽  
Marwan Mas ◽  
Ruslan Renggong
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Republic

Secara teori, Jaksa Penuntut Umum (JPU) tidak diperkenankan mengajukan upaya hukum kasasi terhadap vonis bebas sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 244 KUHAP. Namun dalam praktek selama ini, Jaksa Penuntut Umum telah beberapa kali mengajukan kasasi terhadap putusan bebas dan beberapa di antaranya di kabulkan oleh Mahkamah Agung. Hal ini terjadi karena larangan mengajukan kasasi atas vonis bebas sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 244 KUHAP terkesan multitafsir sehingga menimbulkan perbedaan pendapat dalam penerapannya. Kondisi semacam ini sangat berseberangan dengan prinsip-prinsip Negara Hukum, khususnya dalam Upaya mewujudkan kepastian hukum. Atas dasar itulah, Mahkamah Konstitusi melalui putusannya dengan nomor 114/PUU-X/2012 menyatakan bahwa Frasa “kecuali terhadap putusan bebas” sebagaimana tercantum dalam Pasal 244 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) adalah bertentangan dengan UUD Negara Republik Indonesia tahun 1945. Menurut pertimbangan hukum Mahkamah Konstitusi, larangan mengajukan kasasi atau Putusan Bebas oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum tidak memberikan upaya hukum biasa terhadap putusan bebas serta menghilangkan fungsi Mahkamah Agung sebagai Pengadilan Kasasi terhadap Putusan Bebas, sehingga tidak tercapai kepastian hukum yang adil dan prinsip perlakukan yang sama di hadapan hukum. In theory, public prosecutors (JPU) are not allowed to file a cassation against the acquittal as stipulated in Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, in practice so far, Public Prosecutors have several times filed an appeal against the acquittal decisions and some of them have been granted by the Supreme Court. This occurs because the prohibition on filing an appeal for an acquittal as stipulated in Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code has multiple interpretations, which creates different opinions in its application. This kind of condition is very contrary to the principles of rule of law, especially in the effort to create legal certainty. On that basis, the Constitutional Court through its decision number 114 / PUU-X / 2012 stated that the phrase "except for free decisions" as contained in Article 244 of Law Number 8 Year 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Law (KUHAP) is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. According to the legal considerations of the Constitutional Court, the prohibition against filing an appeal or Free Decision by Public Prosecutors does not provide ordinary remedies against free decisions and eliminates the function of the Supreme Court as a Cassation Court against Free Decisions, so that fair legal certainty is not achieved and the principle of equal treatment in the law.

scholarly journals On The Issue about The Moment of Incurrence of Right of Cassation Appeal on Civil Cases in Republic of Bulgaria

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-180
Author(s):  
Atanas Ivanov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Right

Abstract The right of the party concerned to a cassation appeal is result of specific inspection performed by the Supreme Court of Cassation where examined is the presence of conditions, foreseen in art. 280, par. 1 of Civil-Procedure Code. The right of cassation, however, shall incur from the presence of appellate judgment [1], and not from the specific inspection of Supreme Court of Cassation. The cassation appeal is submitted when the resolution is void, impermissible or inaccurate. This is why the right of cassation appeal is presented and guaranteed by the law opportunity of an individual to oblige Supreme Court of Cassation to rule on the first stage of cassation proceeding - the proceeding on allowing the cassation appeal estimating the statutory criteria in art. 280 of Civil-Procedure Code.

scholarly journals Penyelesaian Perkara Perdata di Pengadilan Berdasarkan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2016

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 456
Author(s):  
I Komang Wiantara
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
Peace Agreements ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The existence of mediation in the settlement of civil disputes in the courts is regulated in the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2016 concerning Mediation Procedures in the Court which contains ten principles including: mediation must be taken, party autonomy, mediation in good faith, time efficiency, mediator certification, mediator responsibility , confidentiality, financing, repetition of mediation, peace agreements outside the court, become integral parts in resolving disputes in court. In addition, mediation in the court strengthened peaceful efforts as stated in the Civil Procedure Code. The purpose of this study is to understand and analyze the legal strength of mediation in the Court. This study uses a normative juridical research method using the statutory approach. Study show that due to its consensual and collaborative nature, mediation always results in a dispute resolution in a win-win solution that is strengthened to become a Peace Deed, which has Executorial power like a Court Decision. Eksistensi mediasi dalam penyelesaian sengketa perdata di pengadilan diatur dalam Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2016 Tentang Prosedur Mediasi Di Pengadilan yang memuat sepuluh prinsip meliputi: mediasi wajib ditempuh, otonomi para pihak, mediasi dengan itikad baik, efisiensi waktu, sertifikasi mediator, tanggung jawab mediator, kerahasiaan, pembiayaan, pengulangan mediasi, kesepakatan perdamaian di luar pengadilan, menjadi bagian dalam integral dalam penyelesaian sengketa di pengadilan. Selain itu mediasi pada pengadilan memperkuat upaya damai sebagaimana yang tertuang di dalam hukum acara Perdata. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk memahami dan menganalisis kekuatan hukum mediasi menurut Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2016 Tentang Prosedur Mediasi Di Pengadilan. Kajian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa karena sifatnya yang konsensual dan kolaboratif, maka mediasi selalu menghasilkan penyelesaian sengketa dengan cara sama-sama menguntungkan bagi para pihak (win-win solution) yang dikuatkan menjadi Akta Perdamaian, yang memiliki kekuatan Eksekutorial layaknya Putusan Pengadilan.

scholarly journals On the issue of violation of the uniformity of judicial practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 113-117
Author(s):  
N. Sh. Gadzhialieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Changes

The article is devoted to such grounds for the cancellation or amendment of court decisions in the supervisory procedure, as a violation of the uniformity of judicial practice. The author analyzes the provisions of the current civil procedure legislation, the explanations of the Plenum and the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the application of paragraph 3 of Article 391.9 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The article identifies such problems as the lack of normative consolidation of the terms "judicial practice" "unity of judicial practice", the uncertainty of the legal status of acts of the highest judicial instance, the possibility of bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility for violating the unity of judicial practice. Based on the results of the study, the author comes to the conclusion that comprehensive legislative changes are necessary to achieve the unity of judicial practice

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document