State Liability for Human Rights Violations, Claim of Expiration of Limitation Period and Principle of Good Faith - An Analysis of Supreme Court Decision 2012 Da 202819 Decided May 16, 2013 -

2016 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-374
Author(s):  
Kwang-Jun TSCHE
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
State Liability

scholarly journals The Urgency of Trademark Registration for Business Actors (Case Study of Supreme Court Decision No 575 K / Pdt.Sus-HKI / 2020 Between Ruben Samuel Onsu vs PT Ayam Geprek Benny Sujono)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-259
Author(s):  
Nurhani Fithriah
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Business People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Trademark Registration

Brand registration is very important for business people. A brand is one of the distinguishing entities between the business activities of business actors. The problem occurs when business actors already have a trademark which is then well known in the community but in fact they have not registered the trademark, as experienced by Ruben Samuel Onsu with his Geprek chicken business. However, in its development, it turns out that there are other business actors using the same mark but have registered the mark. This research was conducted using a normative method through a statutory approach and concepts. This research examines the Supreme Court's decision rejecting the appeal from Ruben Samuel Onsu and analyzes the urgency and procedures for trademark registration. Based on the research results, trademark law in Indonesia is regulated in Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The terms and procedures for application for registration of a mark are regulated in Article 4 - Article 8 and further regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. registration of a mark and being recognized as the legal owner of the mark and rights to the mark are obtainedafter the mark is registered. Ruben Onsu's Bensu mark was declared invalid because Ruben Onsu was not the first party to register the mark, and the Supreme Court decided to cancel all trademark applications made by Ruben Onsu.

scholarly journals Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 50 P/HUM/2018 tentang Pembatalan Permenkumham Nomor 25 Tahun 2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 139
Author(s):  
Deno Ukida Narasoma ◽  
Iwan Permadi ◽  
Diah Aju Wisnu Wardhani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Legal Consequences

This study aimed to analyze the reasons the Supreme Court issued a Supreme Court Decision Number 50 P/HUM/2018 which decided the cancellation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 25 of 2017 and analyze the legal consequences of the decision on new notary candidates. This study used normative juridical with a statutory approach and historical approach. The reasons the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Decision Number 50 P/HUM/2018 were influenced by two factors, i.e., juridical and non-juridical factors. The legal consequences of the Supreme Court Decision Number 50 P/HUM/2018 for new notary candidates was the disappearance of the notary candidate’s obligation to take the notary appointment exam and the emergence of problems related to the clarity of the qualifications that should be completed to register as a notary because the ruling resulted in a legal vacuum related to the terms of the conditions in the appointment of a public notary.

Media Agendas and Human Rights: The Supreme Court Decision on Abortion

1978 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 544-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Crothers Pollock ◽  
James Lee Robinson ◽  
Mary Carmel Murray
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court

scholarly journals Penyesuaian Batasan Tindak Pidana Ringan dan Jumlah Denda Dalam Kuhp Terhadap Perkara Tindak Pidana Pencurian (Analisis Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 02 Tahun 2012 Tentang Penyesuaian Batasan Tindak Pidana Ringan dan Jumlah Denda Dalam Kuhp)

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Soma Karya Madari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Police Department ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Mutual Agreement

Abstract: Compliance of the Limitation of Minor Crimes and the Amount of Fines in Criminal Code towards Stealing Case. After the Rise of Supreme Court Decision Number 02 Year 2012, the regulation on the amount of fine in Criminal Code has been changed. Implication of this new regulation is the application of fast check in handling light stealing case which its value below 2.500.00 rupiahs, Since the regulation is only bound by Supreme Court Institution, a Mutual agreement between law enforcements institution has been made by the creating of “Mahkumjapaol” which consist of Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, Prosecutor Office and Police Department in regulating detail guidelines on the limit of fine in the minor stealing case.Abstrak: Penyesuaian Batasan Tindak Pidana Ringan dan Jumlah Denda Dalam KUHP Terhadap Perkara Tindak Pidana Pencurian. Pasca terbitnya PERMA Nomor 02 Tahun 2012 maka aturan tentang jumlah denda dalam KUHP berubah. Implikasi yang ditimbulkan dari berlakunya PERMA tersebut adalah diterapkannya pemeriksaan acara cepat dalam penanganan perkara tindak pidana pencurian ringan yang nilainya di bawah Rp. 2.500.000.00. Oleh karena Peraturan Mahkamah Agung hanya mengikat lingkungan Mahkamah Agung saja. Maka, dibuat suatu bentuk kesepahaman dengan lembaga penegak hukum lainnya melalui Forum Mahkumjapaol yang beranggotakan Mahkamah Agung, Kementerian Hukum dan HAM, Kejaksaan Agung, dan POLRI telah menyusun kerangka acuan yang lebih rinci mengenai batasan denda dalam perkara tindak pidana ringan DOI: 10.15408/jch.v1i2.3000

scholarly journals Eksistensi Paralegal dalam Pemberian Bantuan Hukum bagi Masyarakat Miskin

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Eka N.A.M. Sihombing
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
The Poor ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Laws And Regulations

<h1>The role of paralegals is needed to handle cases of non-litigation and litigation to fulfill the need for legal aid rights for the poor in facing the law, however, the provision of the role of paralegals in providing litigation legal assistance as stated in article 11 and article 12 Minister of Law and Human Rights of Republic of Indonesia number 1 of 2018 concerning paralegals in the provision of legal assistance based on the Supreme Court decision number 22 P / HUM / 2018 was declared contrary to the higher laws and regulations, namely Law Number 18 of 2003 concerning Advocates and hence not generally accepted. Thus, after the Supreme Court's ruling, paralegals can no longer provide legal litigation aid. Advocate are the only professions who are authorized to carry out legal aid in litigation and court</h1><p class="KataKunciInggris"> </p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document