ADLN - Perpustakaan Universitas Airlangga DAFTAR ISI

ADLN - Perpustakaan Universitas Airlangga

DAFTAR ISI

HALAMAN JUDUL........................................................................................

i

PERNYATAAN ORISINALITAS SKRIPSI................................................

ii

HALAMAN PENGESAHAN.......................................................................... iii LEMBAR PENGESAHAN UJIAN SKRIPSI...............................................

iv

MOTTO DAN PERSEMBAHAN..................................................................

v

KATA PENGANTAR.....................................................................................

vi

ABSTRAK........................................................................................................

ix

DAFTAR ISI....................................................................................................

xi

DAFTAR SINGKATAN.................................................................................. xvi DAFTAR PUTUSAN BADAN PERADILAN...............................................

BAB I

xx

PENDAHULUAN........................................................................... 1

1.1

Latar Belakang Masalah.......................................................................... 1

1.2

Rumusan Masalah...................................................................................

1.3

Tujuan Penulisan..................................................................................... 12

1.4

Manfaat Penelitian..................................................................................

13

1.5

Metode Penelitian...................................................................................

14

12

1.5.1 Tipe penelitian............................................................................. 14 1.5.2 Pendekatan masalah....................................................................

15

1.5.3 Sumber bahan hukum.................................................................. 15 1.5.4 Prosedur pengumpulan bahan hukum.........................................

18

1.5.5 Pengolahan dan analisa bahan hukum......................................... 18 1.6

Pertangungjawaban Sistematika.............................................................. 19

xi SKRIPSI

PERLUASAN KOMPETENSI RELATIF PENGADILAN INDONESIA ILHAMI GINANG PRATIDINA ATAS GUGATAN YANG DIDASARKAN PADA TRANSAKSI/ INFORMASI DI INTERNET


BAB II KOMPETENSI RELATIF PENGADILAN INDONESIA ATAS GUGATAN

BERDASARKAN

HUBUNGAN

KONTRAKTUAL YANG DIBENTUK MELALUI MEDIA INTERNET..................................................................................... 21 2.1

Gugatan Atas Dasar Hubungan Kontraktual........................................... 21 2.1.1 Kontrak sebagai suatu proses......................................................

22

2.1.2 Waktu dan tempat pembentukan kesepakatan melalui media internet......................................................................................... 35 2.1.3 Gugatan pembatalan....................................................................

48

2.1.4 Gugatan wanprestasi.................................................................... 50 2.2

Yurisdiksi Pengadilan Indonesia untuk Mengadili Perkara Perdata yang Timbul dari Hubungan Kontraktual yang Dibentuk Melalui Media Internet.........................................................................................

51

2.2.1 Yurisdiksi pengadilan Indonesia dalam Hukum Perdata Internasional atas gugatan berdasarkan hubungan kontraktual... 2.2.1.1

General

jurisdiction

dalam

Hukum

54

Perdata

Internasional atas gugatan berdasarkan hubungan kontraktual.................................................................. 2.2.1.2

65

Special jurisdiction/ long arm jurisdiction dalam Hukum

Perdata

Internasional

atas

gugatan

berdasarkan hubungan kontraktual............................

78

Forum contractus........................................................ 79 Forum solutionis.........................................................

82

Forum incorporationis................................................ 85 Forum connexitatis.....................................................

94

Forum laboris.............................................................

99

Forum actoris.............................................................. 104 Forum necessitatis...................................................... 2.2.1.3

Exclusive

jurisdiction

dalam

Hukum

109

Perdata

Internasional atas gugatan berdasarkan hubungan kontraktual..................................................................

115

xii SKRIPSI



Forum rei sitae............................................................ 115 Forum selectionis/ electus........................................... 127 Forum registrationis...................................................

138

2.2.2 Penerapan yurisdiksi pengadilan Indonesia untuk mengadili perkara perdata yang timbul dari hubungan kontraktual yang dibentuk melalui media internet..................................................

144

Forum selectionis/ electus...........................................................

149

Forum rei..................................................................................... 156 Forum incorporationis................................................................

159

Forum connexitatis...................................................................... 160 Forum rei sitae............................................................................

161

Forum actoris..............................................................................

163

Forum laboris.............................................................................. 167 Forum contractus........................................................................

172

Forum solutionis.......................................................................... 173 Forum registrationis.................................................................... 175 Forum necessitatis....................................................................... 179

BAB III KOMPETENSI RELATIF PENGADILAN INDONESIA ATAS GUGATAN PERBUATAN MELANGGAR HUKUM YANG

DIDASARKAN

PADA

INFORMASI

DI

INTERNET................................................................................... 182 3.1

Gugatan Atas Dasar Perbuatan Melanggar Hukum............................. 184 3.1.1 Konsep perbuatan melanggar hukum....................................... 186 3.1.2 Tanggung gugat (aansprakelijkheid) perbuatan melanggar hukum......................................................................................

207

3.1.3 Bentuk-bentuk perbuatan melanggar hukum di internet.......... 213 3.2

Yurisdiksi Pengadilan Indonesia untuk Mengadili Perkara Perdata yang Timbul dari Perbuatan Melanggar Hukum yang Dilakukan Melalui Media Internet........................................................................

236

xiii SKRIPSI



3.2.1 Yurisdiksi pengadilan Indonesia dalam Hukum Perdata Internasional atas gugatan berdasarkan perbuatan melanggar hukum...................................................................................... 3.2.1.1

General

jurisdiction

dalam

238

Hukum Perdata

Internasional atas gugatan berdasarkan perbuatan melanggar hukum.................................................... 3.2.1.2

239

Special jurisdiction/ long arm jurisdiction dalam Hukum

Perdata

Internasional

atas

gugatan

berdasarkan perbuatan melanggar hukum............... 242 Forum delicti commissi...........................................

243

Forum incorporationis............................................

259

Forum connexitatis.................................................. 263 Forum actoris..........................................................

264

Forum laboris.......................................................... 273 Forum necessitatis................................................... 276 3.2.1.3

Exclusive jurisdiction dalam Hukum Perdata Internasional atas gugatan berdasarkan perbuatan melanggar hukum....................................................

277

Forum rei sitae........................................................

278

Forum registrationis................................................ 285 3.2.2 Penerapan yurisdiksi pengadilan Indonesia untuk mengadili perkara perdata yang timbul dari perbuatan melanggar hukum yang dilakukan melalui media internet........................

291

Forum delicti commissi...........................................

295

Forum rei................................................................. 308 Forum incorporationis............................................

312

Forum actoris..........................................................

313

Forum laboris.......................................................... 317 Forum registrationis................................................ 320 Forum necessitatis................................................... 323

xiv SKRIPSI



3.3

Penentuan Hukum Substantif yang Berlaku pada Gugatan yang Didasarkan Atas Transaksi/ Informasi di Internet oleh Pengadilan Indonesia..............................................................................................

325

BAB IV PENUTUP.....................................................................................

329

4.1

Kesimpulan..........................................................................................

329

4.2

Saran....................................................................................................

331

DAFTAR BACAAN.....................................................................................

334

GLOSARIUM...............................................................................................

345

xv SKRIPSI



DAFTAR SINGKATAN

A quo

dalam hal ini

AB

Algemeene Bepalingen Wetgeving voor Indonesie

AOL

American Online

ARPA

Advanced Reasearch Project Agency

B2B

Business to Business

B2C

Business to Costumer

BBN

Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.

BCA

Bank Central Asia

BPHN

Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional

BV

Besloten Vennontschap

BW

Burgerlijk Wetboek

C2C

Customer to Customer

CD

Compact Disc

CKS

Chiang Kai Shek

Co.

Company

CoD

Cash on Delivery

Corp.

Corporation

CSP

Cryptographic Service Provider

CV

Commanditaire Vennontschap

c.q.

Casu quo, dalam perkara/ kejadian yang bersangkutan

DNS

Domain Name System

DPR

Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat

ECHR

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

ECJ

European Court of Justice

xvi SKRIPSI



Ed

editor

EDI

Electronic Data Interchange

E-mail

electronic mail

E-recruitment

electronic recruitment

Et al.

et alii, dan kawan-kawan

ETA

Electronic Transaction Act 1999

FOB

Free On Board

G2P

Government to People

GAT

Gesellscaft fȕrAntriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG

GCG

Good Corporate Government

h.

halaman

HIR

Het Herziene Inlandsch Reglement

HKI

Hak Kekayaan Intelektual

HPI

Hukum Perdata Internasional

ibid

ibidem, pada tempat yang sama

ICANN

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Inc.

Incorporated

INCOTERMS

International Commercial Terms

infra

di bawah, post

Internet

Interconnection Network

IP

Internet Protocol

ISP

Internet Service Provider

jis

juncties,berhubungan dengan (jamak)

jo.

juncto, berhubungan dengan (tunggal)

Kedubes

Kedutaan Besar

KUHAP

Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana

KUHP

Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana

xvii SKRIPSI



Lab.

Laboratorium

LAN

Local Area Network

Loc.Cit.

loco citato, pada tempat yang telah disebut/ dikutip

LuK

Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Bateligungs KG

MARI

Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia

MIT

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MKRI

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

NBW

Niuew Burgelijk Wetbook

No.

Nomor

Op.Cit.

opera citato, dalam karya yang telah disebut/ dikutip

p.

page, halaman

Pandi

Pengelola Nama Domain Internet Indonesia

PHK

Pemutusan Hubungan Kerja

PIN

Personal Identification Number

PK

Peninjauan Kembali

PN

Pengadilan Negeri

PP

Peraturan Pemerintah

PPAT

Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah

PT

Pengadilan Tinggi

PT.

Perseroan Terbatas

Pte.Ltd

Private Limited

RBg

Rechtsreglement voor de Buitengewesten

RI

Republik Indonesia

RUU

Rancangan Undang-Undang

Rv

Reglement op de Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering

SEMA

Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung

SRI

Stanford Research Institute

xviii SKRIPSI



supra

di atas, ante

Tbk

Terbuka

TCP

Transmission Control Protocol

TCP/ IP

Transmission Control Protocol/ Internet Protocol

UCLA

University of California Los Angeles

UCSB

University of California Santa Barbara

UD

Unit Dagang

UNCITRAL

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law

UNESCO

United Nations Organization

UU

Undang-Undang

v.

versus, lawan

VoIP

Voice over Internet Protocol

vol

volume, jilid, series

WAN

Wide Area Network

WWW

World-Wide Web

ZDC

Zippo Dot Com, Inc.

ZMC

Zippo Manufacturing Company

Educational,

Scientific

and

Cultural

xix SKRIPSI



DAFTAR PUTUSAN BADAN PERADILAN Adam v. Cape Industries plc, Inggris Court of Appeal, [1990] CH 433..............

260

Alton v. Alton, Amerika Serikat Federal Court, 207 F. 2d 667 [3d Ci. 1953], cert. granted, 347 US 911 (1954), vacated as moot, 347 US 610 (1954) (per curiam).................................................................................................................. 80 Anthony Chee Keong Hooi dan Julia Margaret Dance melawan Rahmat Hadjeri, PN Mataram, 137/Pdt.G/2012/PN.MTR, 11 April 2013; PT Mataram, 104/Pdt/2013/PT.Mtr, 16 September 2013........................................................... 310 Armagas Ltd v. Mundogas SA, Inggris Court of Appeal, [1986] AC 717............ 246 Bata v. Bata, Inggris Court of Appeal, [1948] WN 366......................................

246

Berghoefer v. ASA, ECJ, 221/84, [1985] ECR 2699............................................

135

Bier BV v. Mines de Potasse d’Alsace SA, ECJ, [1976] ECR 1735; [1981] ECR 819...............................................................................................................

244

Blackmer v. United States, pengadilan Amerika Serikat, 284 U.S. 421 [1932]... 249 Blanckaert and Willems v. Trost, ECJ, 139/80, [1981] ECR 819........................

88

Bloommaert/Staat, Hoge Raad, 6 Desember 1963, NJ. 1963, 9..........................

212

Blumenthal v. Drudge, pengadilan Negara Bagian Colombia, Amerika Serikat, 1998, 992 F.Supp. 44............................................................................................ 234 Bourke v. Nissan Motor Co., California Court of Appeal, B068705, (Cal. Ct. App., 26 Juli 1993)...............................................................................................

318

Car-Freshiner melawan Thio Trio Susanto, Pengadilan Niaga pada PN Jakarta Pusat, 41/Merek/2009/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, 11 November 2009; MARI, 34 K/Pdt.Sus/2010, 29 April 2010............................................................................

142

xx SKRIPSI



Castree v. Squibb Ltd, Court of Appeal England, 1 WLR 1248; [1980] 2 ALL ER 589..................................................................................................................

273

Colt Industries Inc. v. Sarlie, High Court England, [1996] 1 WLR 440.............. 75 Dasman, dan kawan-kawan melawan PT. Bank Negara Indonesia (Pesero) tbk Kantor Cabang Kuala Tungkal, PN Kuala Tungkal, 04/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Ktl, 4 Juni 2013..............................................................................................................

113

De Bloss v. Bouyer, ECJ, Case 14/76, [1876] ECR 1497....................................

159

Distillers Co. v. Thompson, Privy Council of Australia, [1971] AC 458; [1971] 2 WLR 441; [1971] 1 All ER 694............................................................

272

Duijnstee v. Goderbauer, ECJ, 288/82, [1983] ECR 3663; [1985] 1 CMLR 220........................................................................................................................

141

Edy Effendy melawan Nike Incorporation cq Nike Inc. Office Indonesia, PN Jakarta Pusat, 282/PHI.G/2008/PN.Jkt.Pst, 27 Januari 2009; MARI, 366 K/Pdt.Sus/2009, 15 September 2009.................................................................... 275 Gesellscaft fürAntriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG (GAT) v. Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Bateligungs KG (LuK), ECJ, C-4/03, [2006] ECR I-6509........... 288 Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp, Illinois Supreme Court, 22 III.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 [1961]....................................................... 246 Hyeon Joo Lee melawan Byun Pyo Lee, Hoo Ja Kim, Mr. Lee In Jae, Mr. Lee Kang

Jae,

dan

PT.

362/Pdt.G/2007/PN.BKS,

Chon 29

Poong Mei

Indonesia, 2008;

PT

PN

Bekasi, Bandung,

72/Pdt/2009/PT.Bandung, 18 Juni 2009; MARI, 2458 K/Pdt/2009, 25 Maret 2010......................................................................................................................

120

xxi SKRIPSI



Interpenational League Againts Racism and Antisemitism v. Yahoo!, Inc.,Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 2000.................................................

313

JP. Morgan Chase Bank Nation Asociation melawan PT. Kalbe Farma Tbk , MARI, 2681 K/Pdt/2010, 7 Maret 2011............................................................... 113 Kalfelis v. Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst and Co, ECJ, [1998] ECR 5565......

239

King v. Lewis, England Court of Appeal, [2004] EWCA Civ 1329....................

300

Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., District Court Kansas, Amerika Serikat, 104. F.Supp.2d 1332 [2000].........................................................................................

150

Leo Junatan dan Ny. Trianawati melawan PT. Astra Internasional Tbk., BMW AG dan BMW Group Indonesia, PN Jakarta Pusat, 385/Pdt.G/2002/PN.Jkt.Pst; PT Jakarta, 210/Pdt/2004/PT.DKI; MARI, 1560 K/Pdt/2006, 17 Juli 2007........ 269 Lindenbaum v. Cohen, Hoge Raad, 31 Januari 1919...........................................

198

Lloyd’s Register of Shipping v. Campenon Benard, ECJ, C-439/93, [1995] ECR I-961............................................................................................................. 90 Made Oka Masagung melawan PT. Bank Artha Graha, Notaris Koesbiono Sarmanhadi SH, Sugianto Kusuma dan PT. Binajaya Padukreasi , MARI, 3641 K/Pdt/2001, 11 September 2002.................................................................

27

Marinari v. Lloyds Bank, ECJ, C-364/93, [1995] ECR I-2719............................ 254 Marubeni Corp. melawan PT. Sweet Indolampung, PN Jakarta Pusat, 63/Pdt.G/2007/PN.JKT.PST, 16 Mei 2007; PT Jakarta, 303/Pdt/2007/PT.DKI, 5 September 2007; MARI, 437 K/Pdt/2008, 2 Juli 2008; MARI, 163 PK/Pdt/2009, 17 Juni 2009................................................................................... 137

xxii SKRIPSI



May

Lindawati

melawan

Eriks

Pte.Ltd,

PN

Jakarta

Pusat,

185/PHI.G/2010/PN.Jkt.Pst, 9 November 2010; MARI, 278 K/Pdt.Sus/2011, 5 Juli 2011...............................................................................................................

103

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co, Amerika Serikat Supreme Court, 355 U.S. 220, 76 S.Ct. 199, 2. L.Ed.2d 223 (1957).............................................

106

Metall und Rohstoff AG v. Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc, Inggris Court of Appeal, [1990] 1 QB 391.....................................................................................

247

Mulox v. Geels, ECJ, C-125/92, [1993] ECR I-4075...........................................

100

Muscutt v. Courcelles, Ontario Court of Appeal, (2002) 60 OR (3d) 20; (2002) 213 DLR (4th) 577...............................................................................................

267

Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., MA Amerika Serikat, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (C.D. Cal. 2000), aff'd, 246 F.3d 675 (9th Cir. 2000); 204 F.R.D. 460 (C.D. Cal. 2001); 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6365 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2002); 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 183 (C.D. Cal. 2002); 231 F. Supp. 2d 977 (C.D. Cal. 2002), 378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004)................................................................... 175 Noriyuki Murao melawan PT. Goo Indonesia Chemical, dan Goo Chemical Co.Ltd, PN Bekasi, 314/Pdt.G/2004/PN.Bks, 30 Agustus 2005; PT Bandung, 1/Pdt/2006/PT.BDG, 26 Juli 2006; MARI, 487 K/Pdt/2007, 1 Oktober 2007....

77

Northwest Health Alliance, Inc. v. Healthgrades.com, Inc., Amerika Serikat Court of Appeal, 538 US 999 [2003]...................................................................

308

[Penggugat] melawan [Tergugat], MARI, 261 K/Sip/1973, 5 Desember 1973.

98

[Penggugat] melawan [Tergugat], MARI, 312 K/Sip/1974, 19 Agustus 1975..

258

[Penggugat] melawan [Tergugat], MARI, 447/SIP/1976, 13 Oktober 1976...... 28 [Penggugat] melawan [Tergugat], MKRI, 003/PUU-IV/2006, 24 Juli 2006.....

183

xxiii SKRIPSI



[Penggugat] v. [Tergugat], Hoge Raad, [1985] NJ 696, 26 Oktober 1984......... 111 Pennoyer v. Neff, pengadilan Amerika Serikat, 95 U.S. 714 [1878].................... 68 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, District Court of New York, Amerika Serikat, 152 F. 3d 920 (2nd Cir. 1998)...............................

321

Pos v. Van den Bosch, Hoge Raad, NJ 1968, 17 November 1967.......................

205

Precision Tooling S.p.A melawan Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG, Pengadilan Niaga

pada

PN

Jakarta

Industri/2004/PN.Niaga.JAK.PST,

Pusat 31

Agustus

No. 2004;

02/Desain MARI,

025

K/N/HaKI/2004, 24 Februari 2005; MARI, 010 PK/N/HaKI/2005, 16 Februari 2007......................................................................................................................

289

PT. Bank Mandiri melawan Taryono, Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial pada PN Semarang, 82/G/2008/PHI.Smg, 23 Desember 2008; MARI, 544 K/Pdt.Sus/2009, 7 Desember 2009; MARI, 146/PK/Pdt.Sus/2011, 29 November 2011....................................................................................................

307

PT. Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero) Tbk melawan Fenny Nugroho dan Hansen Fernando/CV Satelit Plastik, MARI, 419 K/Pdt/2002, 18 Oktober 2006......................................................................................................................

113

PT. Dua Berlian melawan Lee Kum Kee Co. Ltd., MARI, 1284K/Pdt/1998, 18 Desember 2000.....................................................................................................

185

PT. Pelindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills melawan new page Corp., new page holding Corp. dan cerberus capital management, PN Jakarta Pusat, 98/Pdt.G/2007/PN.Jkt.Pst, 2 Juni 2008; PT Jakarta, 27/Pdt/2009/PT.DKI, 19 Juni 2009; MARI, 871 K/Pdt/2010, 22 Desember 2010......................................

113

xxiv SKRIPSI



PT. Smak Snak melawan Effem Foods Inc. dan PT. Effem, PN Jakarta Selatan, 923/Pdt.G/2005/PN.Jak.Sel, 14 Februari 2007; PT Jakarta, 331/Pdt/2007/PTDKI, 19 September 2007; MARI, 900 K/Pdt/2008, 5 November 2008; MARI, 89 PK/Pdt/2010, 19 November 2010...................................................................

261

Putu Spmeada melawan I Gede Nesa dan Geoffrey Authur Easta Ugh, PN Denpasar,

151/Pdt.G/1999/PN.Dps,

16

Mei

2000;

PT

Denpasar,

105/Pdt/2000/PT.DPS, 14 September 2000; MARI, 1913 K/Pdt/2002, 17 September 2008....................................................................................................

97

Reisch Montage v. Kiesel Baumashinen, ECJ, C-103/05, [2006] ECR I-6827.... 95 Richard Bruce Ness melawan Jane Perlez dan The New York Times Co., PN Jakarta Pusat, 181/PDT.G/2007/PN.Jkt.Pst., 08 Oktober 2007...........................

132

Rivard v. United States, pengadilan Amerika Serikat, 375 F.2d 88 [5th Cir. 1967]..................................................................................................................... 249 Rudy Permadi melawan Jovita Kwemena/ Kwee Inghiang, PN Malang, 249/Pdt.G/1999/PN.MLG, 11 Juli 2000; PT Surabaya, 887/Pdt/2000/PT.SBY, 3 April 2001; MARI, 981 K/pdt/2002, 28 Maret 2007........................................

283

SAR Schotte v. Parfums Rothschild, ECJ, 218/86, [1987] ECR 4905.................. 86 Seno Adjie melawan Commonwealth Bank, Mr. Paul R. Milton, Indra Halim dan Martina R.N. Marpaung, PN Jakarta Selatan, 538/Pdt.G/1998/PN.Jak.Sel, 8 Juli 1999; PT DKI Jakarta, 886/Pdt/1999/PT.DKI, 3 April 2000; MARI, 556 K/Pdt/2001, 17 November 2005...........................................................................

92

Shaffer v. Heitner, MA Amerika Serikat, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)..............................................................................................

116

Shevill v. Presse Alliance SA., ECJ, C-68/93, [1995] ECR I-415; [1995] 2 AC 18; [1995] 2 WLR 499; [1995] ALL ER (EC) 289.............................................. 239

xxv SKRIPSI



Sigit Suciptoyono melawan Singapore Airlines Limited, PN Jakarta Selatan, 908/Pdt.G/2007/PN.Jak.Sel,

5

Februari

2008;

PT

Jakarta,

611/Pdt/2008/PT.DKI, 2 Februari 2009; MARI, No. 1517 K/Pdt/2009, 26 April 2011............................................................................................................. 241 Somafer v. Saar Femgas, ECJ, 33/78, [1978] ECR 2183....................................

86

Sri Setianingsih melawan Ny. Boesono dan R. Boesono, MARI, 3431 K/Pdt/1985, 4 Maret 1987....................................................................................

26

Tandartsen Arrest, Hoge Raad, 17 Januari 1958.................................................

195

Tessili v. Dunlop, ECJ, 12/76 [1976] ECR 1473.................................................. 83 Tjai Hie Khiong dan kawan-kawan melawan Uspah Halimah dan kawankawan, PT Bangka Belitung, 14/Pdt/2011/PT.BABEL, 20 April 2011...............

113

Watkins v. North American and Timber Co. Ltd., Court of Appeal England, [1904] 20 TLR 534 [HL]......................................................................................

76

Webb v. Webb, ECJ, C-294/91, [1994] ECR I-1733; [1994] 3 WLR 801...........

124

Yap Kwee Teng melawan PT. Igata Jaya Perdania, PN Batam, 113/Pdt.G/2011/PN.BTM, 16 April 2012............................................................

126

Yos Wijaya Kajeng Amerta melawan Feisol M. Hashim, PN Amlapura, 12/Pdt.G/2011/PN.AP, 22 Agustus 2011.............................................................

282

Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., District Court Pennsylvania, Amerika Serikat, 952 F.Supp. 1119 [1997].......................................................... 156 Zoontje van Zweden, Hoge Raad 26 November 1948, NJ 1949, 149..................

209

Zutphenese Juffrow, Hoge Raad, 10 Juni 1910....................................................

187

xxvi SKRIPSI


ADLN - Perpustakaan Universitas Airlangga DAFTAR ISI

Recommend Documents