The Legal Policy of Judicial Power: The Idea of Implementation of Small Claim Courts in Religious Courts

Religious Court is a judicial environment under the Supreme Court as a perpetrator of judicial power independent of organizing religious court to enforce the law and justice. The implementation of a small claim court in religious courts following simple, quick, and low-cost principles. The Small Claims Court is a simple judicial mechanism outside of the regular judicial mechanisms to resolve disputes quickly and cost lightly. The purpose of this study was to determine the meaning of the principle of fast, simple, and low cost and the legal politics of applying a simple lawsuit in a religious court. This type of research is normative legal research with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The technique of analyzing legal materials uses prescriptive. The study results found that the principle of simple, fast, and low cost in religious courts must meet the expectations of justice seekers who always want a speedy, fair, and low-cost trial. Applying the principle of a simple, fast, and low-cost justice has an intrinsic value of justice, inseparable from the service function. The legal politics of implementing a small claims court in a religious court is a breakthrough step, the proceedings are also fast and inexpensive, decided by a single judge, and the trial mechanism is simple So that implementation of Small Claims Court will be able to help the dispute burden in religious courts.Keywords: legal policy; small claim court, religious court.Abstrak: Peradilan Agama adalah lingkungan peradilan di bawah Mahkamah Agung sebagai pelaku kekuasaan kehakiman yang mandiri menyelenggarakan peradilan agama untuk menegakkan hukum dan keadilan. Penyelenggaraan sidang gugatan kecil di pengadilan agama menganut asas sederhana, cepat, dan murah. Small Claims Court adalah mekanisme peradilan sederhana di luar mekanisme peradilan biasa untuk menyelesaikan sengketa dengan cepat dan biaya ringan. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pengertian asas cepat, sederhana, dan biaya rendah serta politik hukum penerapan gugatan sederhana di pengadilan agama. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konseptual. Teknik analisis bahan hukum menggunakan metode preskriptif. Hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa asas sederhana, cepat, dan biaya rendah dalam peradilan agama harus memenuhi harapan para pencari keadilan yang selalu menginginkan peradilan yang cepat, adil, dan berbiaya rendah. Penerapan asas peradilan sederhana, cepat, dan berbiaya rendah memiliki nilai keadilan yang hakiki, tidak terlepas dari fungsi pelayanan. Politik hukum pelaksanaan peradilan gugatan kecil di pengadilan agama merupakan langkah terobosan, proses beracara juga cepat dan murah, diputuskan oleh hakim tunggal, dan mekanisme persidangan sederhana Sehingga pelaksanaan peradilan gugatan kecil akan dapat membantu beban sengketa di pengadilan agama.Kata Kunci: kebijakan hukum; small claim courts; pengadilan agama.

De la o factură de electricitate la supremația dreptului european: astfel s-a născut doctrina Costa c. Enel

Whilst Costa vs. ENEL is the locus classicus for most accounts of the primacy of European law, the story of that lawsuit is still relatively unknown. What drove Flaminio Costa to sue his electricity provider over a bill of as little as ₤1.925 (about €22 in 2020)? Why did the Small-claims Court of Milan decide to involve both the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice in such a „petty” lawsuit? Why did those two courts hand down such different rulings? How did the lawsuit end when it came back from Luxembourg? Relying upon previously undisclosed court documents and interviews with some of the actors involved, this paper seeks to shed some light on the less-known aspects of the Costa v ENEL lawsuit, against the background of electricity nationalization in Italy at the height of the Cold War, and to assess the contribution of that lawsuit and of its „architect”, Gian Galeazzo Stendardi, to the approfondissement of the doctrine of primacy of European law.

17. Civil Litigation

This chapter considers the conduct of civil litigation. It discusses how civil litigation is more managed than criminal litigation and the courts seek to assist litigants in finding a compromise. The civil courts have extensive powers over costs and they use this to ensure compliance with their rulings and also to encourage early settlement, reducing the need for litigation. The chapter examines three types of civil litigation; cases relating to the small-claims track (‘small claims court’), judicial review and private family-law disputes.

Implementation of the Small Claims Court in Dispute Case Settlement in Indonesia

Dispute settlement through the courts (litigation) is perceived as ineffective and costly. The dispute resolution process through the courts is prolonged and time-consuming due to its very formal and very technical review procedure, high costs of the case, and the likelihood of repeated trials. The number of complaints made against citizens unwilling to deal with the judiciary. The Supreme Court with its authority to address the problems of the courts (litigation), namely by ratifying the 2015 Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No. 2 concerning the procedures for the settlement of the Small Claims Court, to allow all elements of society to take a new direction of litigation, namely through Small Claims Court a simple, fast and low-cost lawsuit. With this, it hopes that the judicial process in Indonesia will be well underway in the future.

Review of Syaria Economy Disputes in Religious Courts within the Perspective of Small Claims Court (SCC)

One of the absolute competencies of the Religious Court revolves around resolving sharia economy disputes. Quick, simple and inexpensive principles of the court must persist within Religious Court procedures, such as in sharia economy disputes relating to business disputes as regulated in Supreme Court Decree No. 14 of 2016 on Procedures in Sharia Economic Disputes. The solution in this way should be able to speed up commercial Shia dispute, but in fact, various obstacles were found. This article reviews the resolution of sharia economy disputes in Religious Court within the perspective of Small Claims Court implied through SC Decree No. 14 of 2016, along with the possible issues of Small Claims Court in Religious Court procedures. This research was conducted with a normative approach. Juridically SC Decree No. 14 of 2016 conforms with SC Decree No. 2 of 2015, now replaced with SC Decree No. 4 of 2019, permits parties to resolve certain nominal claims through a quicker dispute settlement procedure. Judges participate actively throughout the dispute resolution as Small Claims Court provides flexible interaction within formal courts. In practice, limitations such as the amount of sharia economy certified judges show that sharia economy cases are better resolved through standard procedure within the Civil Court. Other limitations, such as the insufficient electronic court (e-court) systems, limit dispute resolution capacity with further substantial limitations such as executorial clauses that are not yet regulated and can take more than 25 (twenty-five days).

17. Civil Litigation

This chapter considers the conduct of civil litigation. It discusses how civil litigation is more managed than criminal litigation and the courts seek to assist litigants in finding a compromise. The civil courts have extensive powers over costs and they use this to ensure compliance with their rulings and also to encourage early settlement, reducing the need for litigation. The chapter examines three types of civil litigation; cases relating to the small claims track (‘small claims court’), judicial review, and private family-law disputes.

From an Unpaid Electricity Bill to the Primacy of EU Law: Gian Galeazzo Stendardi and the Making of Costa v. ENEL

Whilst Costa v. ENEL is the starting point for most accounts of the primacy of EU law, the story of that lawsuit is still relatively unknown. What drove Flaminio Costa to sue his electricity provider over a bill of as little as £1,925 (about €22 in 2019)? Why did the small-claims court of Milan decide to involve both the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice in such a ‘petty’ lawsuit? Why did those two courts hand down rulings going in opposite directions? How did the lawsuit end when it came back to the Milan small-claims court? Relying upon previously undisclosed court documents and interviews with some of the actors involved, this article seeks to shed some light on the less-known aspects of the Costa v. ENEL lawsuit, against the background of electricity nationalization in Italy at the height of the Cold War, and to assess the contribution of that lawsuit and of its ‘architect’, Gian Galeazzo Stendardi, to the development of the doctrine of primacy of European Union law.