Discourse on the Application of Dwangsom on Execution Court Decisions: A Comparison with Netherlands and France
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25041/constitutionale.v5i2.3538Abstract
The classic problem in resolving State Administration disputes boils down to the process of implementing decisions by the parties, which in practice still does not fully meet the expectations of justice seekers. If the decision is not implemented, the State Administrative Court (PTUN) imposes administrative sanctions / coercive measures against the losing party, which can be in the form of sanctions for forced payment of money (dwangsom), in order to increase the executable power of the decision. Normally, the same as the General Court, even though currently there are not many cases, it is still a problem. Article 116 paragraph (4) of the PTUN Law regulates the mechanism for coercive measures against the execution of PTUN decisions, but it is still interpreted as containing a "rechtsvacuum". This research uses normative legal research methods through literature study, and uses descriptive analysis with deductive and comparative methods. The results of the research show that the emergence of discourse on the application of dwangsom is interpreted as a means of psychological coercion against the losing parties in order to order them to comply with the ruling. If we refer to the comparison of the French and Dutch State Administrative Court justice systems, in the Administrative Justice system in France, if the government does not implement decisions that are its obligations, then it can be subject to astreinte/dwangsom, likewise in the Netherlands, the longer the decision of the administrative justice body is not implemented, the greater the burden of dwangsom that must be borne by TUN officials.
Keywords:
Administrative, Dwangsom, Executability, PTUNReferences
Ali, Zainuddin. Metode Penelitian Hukum. Edited by Leni Wulandari. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2021.
Ayunita, Khelda, and Amiruddin Lannurung. Pengantar Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Makassar: Tohar Media, 2022.
Badriyah Khaleed, S H. Mekanisme Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara (PTUN). Jakarta: Media Pressindo, 2018.
Erliyani, Rahmida. “Metode Penelitian Dan Penulisan Hukum Cetakan III.” Yogyakarta: Magnum Pustaka Utama, 2021.
Muhammad Syahrum, S T. Peradilan Semu Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Riau: CV. DOTPLUS Publisher, 2022.
Neno, Victor Yaved, and M H SH. Implikasi Pembatasan Kompetensi Absolut Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jakarta: PT Citra Aditya Bakti, 2018.
Qamal, Nurul. Karakteristik Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Makassar: Pustaka Refleksi, 2011.
Ridwan Hayatuddin, S H. Memahami Undang-Undang Peraturan Dan Strategi Beracara Di Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. Bandung: Prenada Media, 2022.
Sugitario, Eko, and Tjondro Tirtamulia. Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jakarta: Brilian Internasional, 2012.
Widodo, Triwulan Tutik dan Ismu Gunadi. Hukum Tata Usaha Negara Dan Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Indonesia. Jakarta: Prenada Media, 2011.
Erlangga, Sandya, Huta Disyon, and Hoàng Thảo Anh. “Forced Money (Dwangsom) in the Indonesian State Administrative Court System and Astreinte in French Conseil d’État.” Supremasi Hukum: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum 12, no. 2 (n.d.): 107–26.
Ilmiyah, Zainatul, Vina Septi Megita, and Virga Dwi Efenedi. “Concept and Implementation of Dwangsom as A Forced Execution of PTUN Decisions in Indonesia: Comparative Perspective in Thailand and The Netherlands.” In Proceeding of International Conference on Sharia and Law, 1:173–79, 2022.
Jeught, Stefaan Van Der. “Penalty Payment and Lump Sum for Member States Failing to Comply with a Judgment of the EC-Court (Dwangsom Én Boete Voor EU-Lidstaten in Geval van Niet-Nakoming Na Eerdere Veroordeling Door Hof van Justitie).” Rechtskundig Weekblad, no. 70/12 (2006): 501–9.
Panjaitan, Bernat. “Penyelesaian Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara (TUN) Pada Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (PTUN).” Jurnal Ilmiah Advokasi 3, no. 2 (2015): 4.
Pattipawae, Dezonda, and Hendrik Salmon. “Penerapan Uang Paksa (Dwangsom) Dalam Eksekusi Putusan Tatausaha Negara Terhadap Ketidakpatuhan Pejabat Tun.” Community Development Journal: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat 3, no. 3 (2022).
Prahastapa, Anita Marlin Restu, Lapon Tukan Leonard, and Ayu Putriyanti. “Friksi Kewenangan PTUN Dalam Berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 Dan Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1986 Berkaitan Dengan Objek Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara (TUN).” Diponegoro Law Journal 6, no. 2 (2017): 1–18.
Pramana, I Gede Aris Eka, I Made Arjaya, and Ida Ayu Putu Widiati. “Kompetensi Absolut Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Terkait Titik Singgung Antara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Dan Peradilan Umum Dalam Sengketa Pertanahan (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor: 27/G/2017/Ptun. Dps).” Jurnal Analogi Hukum 1, no. 1 (2019).
Pranoto, Edi, and M Riyanto. Politik Hukum Eksekusi Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara, 2022.
Pratama, I Wayan Dedy Cahya, Anak Agung Sagung Laksmi Dewi, and Luh Putu Suryani. “Upaya Paksa Terhadap Pejabat Yang Tidak Melakukan Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Denpasar.” Jurnal Preferensi Hukum 1, no. 2 (2020).
Riza, Dola. “Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara Menurut Undang-Undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Dan Undang-Undang Admnistrasi Pemerintahan.” Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum 3, no. 1 (2018).
Ronse, Preadvies van Prof Mr Jan. “De Dwangsom in Het Belgische Recht.” VERENIGING VOOR DE VERGELIJKENDE STUDIE VAN HET RECHT VAN BELGIË EN NEDERLAND (Ed.), Jaarboek, 1961, 107–17.
Sari, Leona Putri, and Arif Wibowo. “Pelaksanaan Putusan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (PTUN): Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara, Hukum, Indonesia, Putusan Pengadilan.” Jurnal Penelitian Multidisiplin 2, no. 1 (2023).
Siregar, Khoiruddin Manahan. “Kedudukan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Di Indonesia.” Jurnal AL-MAQASID: Jurnal Ilmu Kesyariahan Dan Keperdataan 6, no. 1 (2020): 88–100.
Storme, Marcel. “Een Revolutionaire Hervorming: De Dwangsom.” TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR PRIVAATRECHT, 1980, 222–40.
Verheul, Hans. “The EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments of 27 September in Dutch Legal Practice.” Netherlands International Law Review 28, no. 1 (1981): 68–86.
Wahyunadi, Yodi Martono, and M H SH. “Kompetensi Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Dalam Sistem Peradilan Di Indonesia.” PTUN Jakarta 3, no. 2 (2016).
Undang-Undang Nomor 51 Tahun 2009 tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1986 tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara.
General Administrative Law Act (GALA)
Permana, Tri Cahya Indra. “Pengujian Keputusan Diskresi Oleh Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara.” Universitas Diponegoro, 2009.
Downloads
Total Abstract Views: 11 |
Total Downloads: 17
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2025 by the Auhtor(s) Published by Development Centre Research of Law and Scientific Publication on behalf of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
