Suchergebnisse

Although long considered alien to the civil law tradition, the publication of separate dissenting or concurring opinions is now permitted by the majority of European constitutional courts, the only exceptions being the Austrian, Belgian, French, Italian, and Luxembourgish constitutional courts. The decades-long history of dissenting opinions in the practice of several European constitutional courts calls for an analysis. While there is an extensive literature in the United States regarding the use of dissenting opinions, comprehensive empirical research is still absent in Europe. American scholars have conducted research from several different points of view. Legal scholars have dealt primarily with the relationship between dissenting opinions and the doctrine of binding precedent, and have tried to solve the problem of the precedential value of plurality decisions, e.g. decisions lacking a reasoning shared by the majority of the judges. Political scientists, for their part, have studied the policy-making role of judges and strategic opinion-writing. Scholars of law and economics have analyzed the costs and benefits of writing separately. Even judges themselves have often expressed their own thoughts in essays or conference speeches on the matter. ; Special Issue of the German Law Journal on 'Constitutional Reasoning' The article was commented by Prof. Hjalte Rasmussen and Louise Nan Rasmussen in the same issue: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1558

Abstract: Judges 'decisions in court are the core of the parties' agreement. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number: 579/K/AG/2010 concerning Settlement of Inheritance Disputes. Trying out this research is trying to explain, is there a legal basis for differences of opinion in the judicial decision in Indonesia. The juridical-normative method was used in analyzing this study. Primary and secondary data sources from the decision of the Supreme Court, Jurisprudence Books and Legislation Regulations are sources of data in completing this research. The results showed first, the legal basis for the difference of opinion in the court's decision in Indonesia; secondly, the legal basis / consideration of the cassation panel of judges who reject the cassation filed by the parties in the decision Number: 579/K/AG/2010 is an unacceptable lawsuit because the cassation applicants are not the heirs who are experts and heirs who are trying exist in KHI regulated in Presidential Instruction Number 1 of 1991; and three, the legal implications of differences of opinion that proved positive as the judges' hard efforts in compiling the normative legal grounds and considerations, description, basis, and legal liability to take a fair decision, including the decision of cassation Number: 579/K/AG/ 2010 who refused to give heir to the heirs decided that the gift really took effect before the birth of KHI in 1991.Abstrak: Putusan hakim di pengadilan merupakan inti penyelesaian sengketa bagi pihak-pihak yang berperkara. Penelitian ini berfokus pada perbedaan pendapat (dissenting opinion) dalam Putusan Kasasi Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor: 579/K/AG/2010 tentang Penye­lesaian Sengketa Waris. Sehingga penelitian ini mencoba menjelaskan, apakah ada dasar hukum dissenting opinion dalam putusan penga­dilan di Indonesia. Metode yuridis-normatif digunakan dalam menganalisis penelitian ini. Sumber data primer dan sekunder dari putusan Mahkamah Agung, Kitab-kitab Fikih dan Peraturan Perundang-undangan menjadi sumber data dalam melengkapi penelitian ini. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan pertama, dasar hukum kebo­lehan adanya dissenting opinion dalam putusan pengadilan di Indonesia; kedua, dasar/pertimbangan hukum majelis hakim kasasi yang menolak permohonan kasasi yang oleh para pihak dalam putusan Nomor: 579/K/AG/2010 adalah gugatan tidak dapat diterima karena para pihak pemohonan kasasi bukan para pihak ahli waris yang sebenarnya dan ahli waris pengganti baru ada dalam KHI yang diatur dalam Inpres Nomor 1 Tahun 1991; dan ketiga, implikasi hukum dari adanya dissenting opinion terbukti positif sebagai usaha keras para hakim dalam menyusun dasar dan pertimbangan hukum secara normatif, uraian, dasar, dan pertim­bangan hukum untuk mengambil sebuah putusan yang adil, termasuk pula putusan kasasi Nomor: 579/K/AG/2010 yang menolak memberikan harta waris kepada ahli waris pengganti sudah benar karena ketentuan itu belaku sebelum lahirnya KHI Tahun 1991.