Menggugat Sifat Final Dan Mengikat Putusan Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen (Bpsk)

Abstract

UUPK memberikan dua pilihan penyelesaian sengketa kepada konsumen dan pelaku usaha yaitu penyelesaian sengketa di luar pengadilan melalui BPSK atau melalui Pengadilan. BPSK memiliki kewenangan mengeluarkan suatu putusan yang sifat putusannya adalah final dan mengikat. Dari hal ini kemudian muncul suatu isu hukum apakah putusan BPSK yang final dan mengikat sama artinya dengan final dan mengikat pada putusan pengadilan atau memiliki makna yang berbeda. Penulis beragumen bahwa kedua putusan tersebut di atas bukan merupakan hal yang sama. Hal ini karena atas putusan BPSK masih dapat dilakukan upaya hukum lebih lanjut ke Pengadilan. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan komparatif.
 Consumer Protection Law provides two alternatives for dispute resolution to consumers and businessmen. The alternatives are outside the court through the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) and the Court. BPSK has the authority to make a decision that is final and binding. This feature raises a legal question on whether the final and binding decision issued by BPSK has the same meaning as the Court’s decision. The author argues that those decisions are typically different because, on BPSK’s decision, an appeal could be made to the Court. This article is legal research that uses a statute approach and comparative approach.

Juridical Study of Decisions of the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency Outside the Court in Electronic Trading

“…While the BPSK decision is binding, binding means giving the burden of legal obligations and demanding compliance from legal subjects. [17] Talking about the binding power of the BPSK decision, it does not yet have final and binding force because there are further legal remedies contained in Article 56 paragraph (2) and 58 paragraph (2), which still provide opportunities for consumers and business actors to appeal until to appeal. [17].…”