Small Claim Court as the Alternative of Bad Credit Settlement for Legal Certainty of the Economic Actors

This article aimed to analyze the problem of legal cases accumulation, especially default on credit contracts in court. It also analyzes the effectiveness of implementing a small claim court in contract default and the independence of a single judge in handling cases through the small claim court mechanism. Small claim court also to offer a breakthrough in the settlement of bad loans related to contract defaults to reduce the burden on courts in Indonesia and provide legal certainty to business actors. The sole judge also examine, resolve and decide on inheritance cases in a fast and efficient process to issue a fair decision for all parties. This normative study was carried out using statutory, case, comparative law, and analysis content approaches. The research results showed that the filing of small claim court increased 10 times from 2015 to 2020, with the plaintiffs dominated by banks in bad credit cases. A small claim court provides benefits the bank and the customer because it speeds up the settlement of the plaintiff's money in a bad credit case with a case value of not more than 500 million, especially for microloans in a maximum period of 25 days. Furthermore, the latest regulation of 2019 concerning small claim court gives judges the authority to confiscate guarantees and conduct auctions to carry out forced executions through the Court Execution Auction process.

Dr. Korbuly Pál, sudca Štátneho súdu v Bratislave

The history of law indeed refers to persons handing down judgments and often offers interesting stories, such as the story of a judge working under various political regimes Dr. Pavel Korbuly (1906–1970). On May 4, 1934, Korbuly was appointed a single judge in criminal matters, after 1948 he became an instrument of justice under the communist regime and was one of the most active judges of the State Court in Bratislava. Prior to the Vienna Arbitration, he was a judge in the Czechoslovak Republic, then in Hungary, and after 1948 he was one of the judges who tried and sentenced victims of the communist regime (more than 500 people) in Slovakia. By the same communist regime, however, Korbuly was later prosecuted due to his active support of the anti-communist uprising in Hungary in 1956. Unlike others, he was one of the judges who had realized their responsibility for convicting the innocent and committed public repentance. From this perspective, his life story is unique in Central Europe as well as worldwide.

KEBIJAKAN PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP ANAK SEBAGAI KORBAN KEJAHATAN DALAM HUKUM POSITIF DI INDONESIA

ABSTRAKSidang praperadilan dilakukan dengan cepat dan berita acara serta putusan praperadilan dibuat seperti pemeriksaan singkat dan dipimpin oleh seorang hakim tunggal. Tujuh hari merupakan ketentuan yang diamanatkan KUHAP untuk pelaksanaan rangkaian praperadilan yang cepat dan sederhana, mulai dari pemeriksaan perkara. Mahkamah Konstitusi melalui putusan nomor 78 / PUU-XI / 2013 menegaskan bahwa proses praperadilan paling lambat tujuh hari untuk memberikan kepastian hukum, terutama bagi pemohon yang merasa haknya dirugikan. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis empiris yaitu sebagai upaya pendekatan masalah yang diteliti dengan sifat hukum yang nyata atau sesuai dengan kenyataan dilapangan, karena dalam penelitian ini peneliti segera melakukan penelitian di lokasi atau lapangan penelitian yaitu tempat yang diteliti untuk memberikan gambaran yang lengkap dan jelas tentang masalah yang diteliti. Sifat penelitian ini adalah deskriptif. Penelitian ini menggunakan data sekunder yaitu data yang telah disiapkan. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah interpretasi hakim terkait sidang praperadilan selama tujuh hari antara hari kerja dan hari kalender dalam beberapa kasus dan relevansinya dengan kode etik hakim di Pengadilan Negeri Pekanbaru yang bervariasi. Hal ini karena masih adanya penafsiran hakim yang tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan KUHAP sehingga masih ada hakim yang memutuskan perkara praperadilan melebihi 7 hari kerja. Pemenuhan hak pemohon dengan interpretasi terkait sidang praperadilan tujuh hari antara hari kerja dan hari kalender di Pengadilan Negeri Pekanbaru masih memuat beberapa perkara yang menunjukkan terpenuhinya hak pemohon sesuai dengan ketentuan di dalam KUHAP. Dalam Pasal 82 ayat (1) huruf c KUHAP paling lambat tujuh hari hakim harus sudah mengambil putusan, padahal masih ada beberapa perkara yang putusan hakimnya dijatuhkan lebih dari 7 hari. Kata kunci: interpretasi; uji coba tujuh hari; praperadilanABSTRACTThe pretrial hearing is conducted quickly and the minutes and pretrial decisions are made like a brief examination and are chaired by a single judge. Seven days is a provision mandated by the Criminal Procedure Code for the implementation of a quick and simple pre-trial series, starting from the commencement of the examination. The Constitutional Court through decision number 78 / PUU-XI / 2013 asserted that at the latest seven days the pretrial process is to provide legal certainty, especially for applicants who feel their rights are harmed. This type of research is empirical juridical research that is as an effort to approach the problem under study with the nature of law that is real or in accordance with the reality in the field, because in this study, researchers immediately conduct research on the location or place under study to provide a complete and clear picture about the problem under study. The nature of this research is descriptive. This study uses secondary data, namely data that has been prepared. The results of this study are the interpretation of judges related to the seven-day pretrial hearing between workdays and calendar days in some cases and their relevance to the judge's code of ethics in the Pekanbaru District Court varies. There are still interpretations of judges who are not in accordance with the provisions of the KUHAP so that there are still judges who decide that pretrial cases exceed 7 working days. Fulfillment of the right of the applicant with a related interpretation of the seven-day pretrial hearing between the working day and calendar day in the Pekanbaru District Court still contains several cases that indicate the fulfillment of the right of the applicant in accordance with the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code. In Article 82 paragraph (1) letter c KUHAP no later than seven days the judge must have made a decision, while there are still a number of cases where the judge's decision is imposed more than 7 days.Keywords: interpretation; seven days trial; pretrial

The Discriminatory Legal Barrier of Partner Consent in Victorian ART Law: EHT18 v Melbourne IVF

In September 2018, the Federal Court of Australia found that a Victorian woman did not need her estranged husband’s consent to undergo in vitro fertilisation treatment (IVF) using donor sperm. The woman, who was 45 years of age, made an urgent application to the Court for permission to undergo IVF using donor sperm. In a single judge ruling, Griffiths J held that the requirement in the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (Vic) (‘ART Act’) for a married woman to obtain the consent of her husband discriminated against the woman in question on the basis of her marital status in contravention of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (‘SD Act’). His Honour declared the Victorian law in this instance ‘invalid and inoperable’ by operation of section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution to the extent it was inconsistent with the Commonwealth law. Although the declarations by the Federal Court were limited in their terms to the circumstances of the case, the judgment raises broader issues about equity of access to assisted reproductive treatment (ART) in Victoria. The issue of partner consent as a barrier to access to ART was specifically raised by an independent review of the ART Act in Victoria. The Victorian Government released an interim report late last year as a first stage of the review, which canvasses some options for reform. This raises a broader question as to whether prescriptive legislation imposing detailed access requirements for ART is necessary or even helpful.

Rule 208 Examination as to formal requirements, recording in the register, assignment to panel, designation of judge-rapporteur, single judge

An examination of the application by the Registry is necessary for a decision on an application for provisional measures. First, the Registry checks whether an opt-out has been declared for the patent at issue (Rule 16.1). If an opt-out has been declared, the Registry informs the applicant pursuant to Rule 16.1 and requests him to withdraw or to complete the application.

Examination as to formal requirements, recording in the register, assignment to panel, designation of judge-rapporteur, single judge

Where main proceedings on the merits of the case have not yet been started before the Court, the Application for preserving evidence shall be dealt with in accordance with Rule 16 (formalities examination by Registry), Rule 17.1(a) to (c) and .2 (date of receipt, recording in the register, action number, assignment to panel) and Rule 18 (designation only of judge-rapporteur by presiding judge).

Application of the Rules and general principles of interpretation

For decisions and orders of the UPC (for the difference, → commentary on Art 73), it is generally the panels at the divisions of the Court of First Instance and at the Court of Appeal that are competent. Para 2 is a rule of interpretation which states that, where exclusive competence of the panel has not been provided, single judges (presiding judge, judge rapporteurs, standing judges) may perform the act. That is intended to enable a flexible, rapid type of proceedings particularly in cases where the members of the panel are not in close physical proximity at all times. of course, the interpretation rule need not be applied if a Rule of Procedure expressly confers competence for an act to a single judge (presiding judge, judge rapporteur, or standing judge).

Rule 92: Assignment to panel or to single judge, designation of judge-rapporteur

Rule 92 defines the written procedure pursuant to Art 52(1) UPCA and Rule 85(a) UPCARoP in more detail for cases where the EPO has not rectified the decision in the action in full pursuant to Rule 91, which means that the claimant is still adversely affected.

Exclusion from the proceedings

This Rule is self-explanatory. Exclusion from the proceedings is taken by the Court as a means of final recourse after one or more formal warnings have been issued. Exclusion should not be issued by one judge alone (judge rapporteur, single judge, standing judge), but by the panel before which the proceedings are pending. In addition, the competent public prosecutor’s office may be informed in the case of criminal acts.