Small Claims Court Research Articles

ANÁLISE DOS PRESSUPOSTOS DA RESPONSABILIDADE CIVIL DOS BANCOS NOS CONTRATOS DE VENDAS CASADAS

This paper explores the concept of moral and material damages, highlighting their compensatory, punitive and preventive functions, with a focus on the application of the law in cases of defective services in the Brazilian legal context, especially in the Small Claims Courts of Amazonas. It analyzes the historical development of consumer law and the role of Small Claims Courts in promoting swift and accessible justice, highlighting the importance of the principles of transparency, objective good faith and equity in consumer relations. The research uses a doctrinal and jurisprudential approach to demonstrate the effectiveness of tied selling as a tool to curb harmful practices and relieve the burden on the judicial system, promoting a fairer and more responsible business environment. It is concluded that the rigorous application of punitive damages contributes significantly to the protection of consumer rights, strengthening the civil liability system and social justice in Brazil.

CITAÇÕES E INTIMAÇÕES NO JUIZADO ESPECIAL: A FAZENDA PÚBLICA E A DINÂMICA DOS PRAZOS

This article explores the dynamics of summons and subpoenas in the Small Claims Courts, focusing on the Public Treasury and the regulation of procedural deadlines. Initially, the concept of summons and subpoenas and their relevance to ensure the regularity of the process and the principles of adversarial proceedings and full defense are addressed. Next, the participation of the Public Treasury in Small Claims Courts is analyzed, highlighting the specificities brought by Law No. 12,153/2009, and how the legislation establishes equitable treatment for procedural deadlines. The article investigates the case law of the Superior Courts, which confirms the equivalence of the deadlines of the Public Treasury to those of other litigants in Small Claims Courts, in line with the principle of speed. The implementation of electronic tools for citations and summonses is discussed, highlighting both the benefits in terms of procedural efficiency and the challenges faced by the Public Administration in adapting to new technologies. In conclusion, the article argues that procedural modernization and flexibility are crucial to balancing the speed of Small Claims Courts with the rights of the Public Treasury, promoting faster and more effective justice.

Position of a Single Judge in a Small Claim Court: Role and Responsibilities

In the context of litigation, a simple lawsuit is one that has no legal recourse. It is an objection that is heard by judges who are senior in the field. This type of lawsuit is convenient for the community at large, encompassing companies, People's banks, and other banks whose proof is simple. The data collection methods employed in this research are observation, interview, and documentation. The subject of this research is the application of a straightforward lawsuit in the Jakarta District Court, specifically, the types of cases that may be resolved by such a suit. This is a qualitative study employing an empirical juridical approach, employing a descriptive methodology. This research provides a conclusion that a simple lawsuit based on Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2019 represents a significant advancement over Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2015. However, it was subsequently amended by Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2019. The value of the lawsuit is set at IDR 500,000,000.00, with a case subscription period of 25 days. The categories of this simple lawsuit are default (breach of promise) and tort, with the exception of those concerning land issues. The application of this simple lawsuit at the Pekanbaru District Court is commendable, although a few obstacles remain. However, these do not impede the resolution of existing cases. With regard to the obstacles for judges in this simple lawsuit, namely the District Court, it is necessary to implement a more extensive socialization program to educate the public about this simple lawsuit. This will help to prevent any errors when filing a case resolved through a simple lawsuit.

THE SMALL CLAIM COURTS DURING COVID-19: ANALYSIS OF INDONESIAN BANKS’ CLAIMS ON BAD CREDIT

The purpose of this study is to discuss the suitability of small claim courts to solve bad credit claims that are filed by banks as an alternative to dispute contract defaults. The study analyses the trend of banks’ small claims during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study employed an empirical normative approach. It combines a normative legal approach and additional empirical elements in the form of cases and decisions. The results show that some of the regulations that were released before the pandemic, such as the Regulation of the Supreme Court Number 4 of 2019 on the Settlement of Small Claim Courts, provide benefits for banks to settle credit disputes because they allow various expansions. The Regulation of the Supreme Court Number 3 of 2018 on The Administration of Cases in Electronic Courts has introduced some electronic applications. Although business (bank) litigation remains dominant, the trend of bank claims in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic has dropped. In contrast, the trend of individual claims has increased significantly. The decline is influenced by countercyclical policies that are issued by the Financial System Stability Committee. The committee members consist of representatives of the Ministry of Finance, Bank Indonesia, the Financial Services Authority, and the Deposit Insurance Corporation. It aims to handle and cope with the banks’ crisis related to the pandemic.

KONSEP MEKANISME PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA MELALUI SMALL CLAIM COURT SUATU STUDI PERBANDINGAN DAN IMPLEMENTASINYA DI INDONESIA

The demand of society seeking justice is for simple, speedy, and cost-effective dispute resolution. This is the foundation for the establishment of the principle of justice in Indonesia in accordance with Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning the Judicial Power, namely the principles of simple, speedy, and cost-effective justice. This is due to the fact that dispute resolution through litigation often fails to satisfy the parties involved due to its relatively lengthy process, complexity, and high costs. Meanwhile, dispute resolution outside the court (non-litigation) lacks executive power because it is solely contractual. The mechanism for resolving disputes through the Small Claims Court was initially known and practiced in countries with a common law system, eventually adopted by countries with a civil law system. In Indonesia, it was translated and implemented through the examination of simple lawsuits in accordance with the Supreme Court Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 2015 concerning Procedures for Filing Simple Lawsuits, as amended and perfected by the Supreme Court Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of 2019 concerning Amendments to the Supreme Court Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 2015 concerning Procedures for Filing Simple Lawsuits.

Collectibility Insights: Financial Analysis

The General Regional Company BPR Bank Gresik is one of the banks owned by the Gresik Regency government which provides credit facilities. Disbursing credit does not always run smoothly, because in disbursing credit there is definitely a risk. One of the risks in distributing credit is the existence of problem loans. The size of non-performing loans can be seen from the high level of collection. This research aims to find out, analyze and explain the factors causing and handling credit based on collection in the BPR Bank Gresik Perumda. The research method used is descriptive with a qualitative approach. Data analysis was carried out using the Miles and Huberman model, which involves data collection, data reduction, data presentation, and drawing conclusions. The research results show that the factors causing the increase in collection come from internal and external banks. Handling is carried out differently depending on the level of collection which involves various steps, including telephone warnings, direct billing to the house, warning letters, summons letters, restructuring, placing banners on collateral, cessie, small claims court, and taking over the debtor's collateral.

M.G. Mohanty vs. That State of Odisha

The Commercial Courts Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "CC Act") was established to speed up the resolution of commercial disputes promptly and with as little interference as possible in the highest courts. The law also gives the Commercial Court jurisdiction to hear commercial arbitration proceedings. Although the intention is noble, the legislators inadvertently left jurisdictional inconsistencies in the law, resulting in a conflict with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996. The conflict of jurisdiction arises due to the distinction between the commercial courts established by law, presided over by Civil Judges Senior Division, and the provisions outlined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (AC Act). According to the AC Act, exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes related to arbitration lies with the Chief Civil Court of the respective district. This discrepancy has given rise to uncertainty regarding the authority of newly established Commercial Courts to entertain applications under the Arbitration Act. While a definitive legal resolution to this jurisdictional conflict remains elusive, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, following the Appellate Court's precedent, has determined that irrespective of the claim's value, cases pertaining to arbitration must be adjudicated within the purview of the District Civil Court. It has been observed that commercial disputes connected to arbitration, as governed by Sections 9, 14, 34, and 36 of the Arbitration Law, fall under the jurisdiction of a commercial court situated within the domain of a district judge or an additional district judge. No Class I Civil Judge or any Small Claims Court can adjudicate disputes.

Ratio Legis of Combining Illegal Acts with Default in Small Claim Court Cases

Civil procedural law in Indonesia has not yet specifically regulate the accumulation of lawsuits between Unlawful Acts (PMH) and default, which resulted in prolonged discourse in the realm of jurisprudence. Some legal experts are of the opinion that combining cases of unlawful acts with cases of breach of contract in one case/lawsuit is not permitted, seanwhile others think that such an accumulation is possible. The debates finally ended with the publication of the Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) on Small Claims Court which provided legal certainty regarding the permissibility of this accumulation. This research is normative law with a substantive analysis approach. The aim is to find out the legal philosophical basis behind the formation of PERMA. The results of the research show that the possibility to cumulate between Unlawful Acts (PMH) and default in the PERMA aims to simplify the process of proceedings through simple, fast and low-cost principles. In this way, foreign investors'confidence in resolving cases in Indonesia can be increased.

Using deep learning to predict outcomes of legal appeals better than human experts: A study with data from Brazilian federal courts

Legal scholars have been trying to predict the outcomes of trials for a long time. In recent years, researchers have been harnessing advancements in machine learning to predict the behavior of natural and social processes. At the same time, the Brazilian judiciary faces a challenging number of new cases every year, which generates the need to improve the throughput of the justice system. Based on those premises, we trained three deep learning architectures, ULMFiT, BERT, and Big Bird, on 612,961 Federal Small Claims Courts appeals within the Brazilian 5th Regional Federal Court to predict their outcomes. We compare the predictive performance of the models to the predictions of 22 highly skilled experts. All models outperform human experts, with the best one achieving a Matthews Correlation Coefficient of 0.3688 compared to 0.1253 from the human experts. Our results demonstrate that natural language processing and machine learning techniques provide a promising approach for predicting legal outcomes. We also release the Brazilian Courts Appeal Dataset for the 5th Regional Federal Court (BrCAD-5), containing data from 765,602 appeals to promote further developments in this area.

Small Claim Court in Sharia Economic Dispute Settlement: Overview of Sharia Economic Principles

The Supreme Court as the highest judicial body has issued special regulations related to sharia economic disputes settlement. This study aimed at, first, analyzing the implementation of sharia economic disputes based on small claim court in terms of sharia economic principles; second, discovering the relevance of small claim court in sharia economic disputes settlement with Islamic judicial system. This study used normative juridical approach, with library study as data collection technique, and descriptive method. The results show that, first, the implementation of small claim court in sharia economic dispute settlement in Religious Courts still has a contrary process to sharia economic principles, namely the principle of justice and the principle of responsibility; second, there is relevance between the concept of small claim court in sharia economic dispute settlement and the jurisdiction of Islamic judicial system from the aspect of authority, nominal number of cases, and philosophical legal formation.

Sharia Economic Dispute Resolution During Covid-19 Pandemic

The process of resolving a case, especially concerning business disputes, generally runs slowly, drags on, and takes a long time, at least three months. This condition will, of course, burden the litigants, especially in cases where the value of the material claim is small. To overcome this problem, the Supreme Court issued PERMA No. 2 of 2015 in conjunction with PERMA Number. 4 of 2019 which regulates the Settlement of Simple Claims (Small Claim Court). What is meant by Simple Claim Settlement. is a procedure for examining a civil lawsuit with a material claim value of a maximum of 500 million rupiahs. With this regulation, it is hoped that the dispute resolution procedure can be simpler, faster, and less expensive. This study examines the court process for simple lawsuits related to Sharia business cases during the Covid-19 pandemic. The aim is to find out how the court process works and how effective the mechanism is in serving the interests of justice seekers. This research is a qualitative descriptive study using a juridical normative approach. The results showed that during the pandemic, the implementation of the small claim court was carried out using the e-court facility, and has proven to be effective and efficient in serving justice seekers.

SMALL CLAIM COURT : PRINCIPLE CONCRETIZATION IN LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT

The purpose of this research is to examine the provisions of civil procedural law in settling a lawsuit, to know the form of simple, fast, and low-cost concretization in simple lawsuit settlement. The research method uses the research object of simple, fast, and low-cost concretization in the settlement of a simple claim, normative juridical approach, the type of data used in this study is secondary data, which is sourced from the literature. Secondary data consists of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, legal material collection techniques carried out by literature and the internet, while the data analysis method is analyzed descriptively qualitatively. The results show that the provisions of civil procedural law in resolving claims in court so far have been using the basis of HIR, which do not differentiate between complicated and simple case examinations so that the time for settlement is the same. The process starting from submitting/registering a lawsuit, determining the day of trial by the head of the panel of judges, the parties being summoned appropriately, the trial, evidence to the verdict took a long time, namely 6 months (SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR No. 6 of 1992), so the Supreme Court issued SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR No. 2 of 2014 which provides a time limit for completing the case of five (5) months. The simple, fast, and low-cost principles of concretizing a small claim court can be seen in the settlement stage. Settlement of a simple lawsuit is divided into 4 (four) stages, namely: 1), preliminary stage, 2) stage of case examination, 3). The objection request stage and 4), the simple action decision stage. This simple lawsuit settlement process should take a maximum of 25 (twenty-five) days. The simple principle is embodied in the shortened settlement process mechanism, the fast principle is realized within 25 days of completion, a peace that does not use the provisions of Supreme Court rules No.1 of 2016, while the principle of low cost is realized from a simple settlement mechanism, will be affected by the cost of the case.

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.

Opportunities of Traditional Law Communities to Resolve Criminal Cases in Indonesia (Response to the Long Crisis of Legality Issues in the Principles of Criminal Law)

The formalization of law in Indonesia is the climax of the reification process. This reification occurs because it is controlled and nominated by the ruling class in the interpretation of the law. Legal arguments are made in a repressive condition because they must be supported by a legal arrangement that seems to explain social conditions comprehensively. On the other hand, each law is a system; that is, the rules are unanimous based on the mind's unity. Legal entities in Indonesia (as incarnations in customary law) are a system that is based on the basics of the Indonesian nation's reason, which is not the same as the mind that controls the western legal system. To be aware of the legal entity system in Indonesia, one must explore the essential nature of the reason that exists in Indonesian society. However, the principle of concordance seems to have been ingrained among legal experts in this Republic, so that the legal system is not adopted unequally, the Western legal system dominates the national legal system, so that the religious and customary law systems have less room to be enforced by the state. That is why The familiar law system and the Islamic legal system in Indonesia are not developed and are not well absorbed in the national legal system; this indication can be seen from the percentage of statutory legal products produced by the state which adopt more Western legal strategies such as the Civil Code, the Criminal Code. Commercial Code, Human Rights (HAM) law. In the context of the development of Indonesian law, demands to revise and even replace various laws and regulations originating from the Dutch colonial such as the Criminal Code, the Civil Code, which are no longer by the identity of the Indonesian nation, the renewal of these provisions is a historical necessity and a non-negotiable constitutional imperative. This research is library research . . The method used in this research is the method of philosophical hermeneutics, with the following elements: interpretation, description, and comparison. The study results indicate that, in reality, today, the practice of applying the small claim court mechanism in positive Indonesian criminal law has been widely used in various disputes that occur in society, especially against crimes that are light and not difficult to prove.

The Legal Policy of Judicial Power: The Idea of Implementation of Small Claim Courts in Religious Courts

Abstract: Religious Court is a judicial environment under the Supreme Court as a perpetrator of judicial power independent of organizing religious court to enforce the law and justice. The implementation of a small claim court in religious courts following simple, quick, and low-cost principles. The Small Claims Court is a simple judicial mechanism outside of the regular judicial mechanisms to resolve disputes quickly and cost lightly. The purpose of this study was to determine the meaning of the principle of fast, simple, and low cost and the legal politics of applying a simple lawsuit in a religious court. This type of research is normative legal research with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The technique of analyzing legal materials uses prescriptive. The study results found that the principle of simple, fast, and low cost in religious courts must meet the expectations of justice seekers who always want a speedy, fair, and low-cost trial. Applying the principle of a simple, fast, and low-cost justice has an intrinsic value of justice, inseparable from the service function. The legal politics of implementing a small claims court in a religious court is a breakthrough step, the proceedings are also fast and inexpensive, decided by a single judge, and the trial mechanism is simple So that implementation of Small Claims Court will be able to help the dispute burden in religious courts.Keywords: legal policy; small claim court, religious court.Abstrak: Peradilan Agama adalah lingkungan peradilan di bawah Mahkamah Agung sebagai pelaku kekuasaan kehakiman yang mandiri menyelenggarakan peradilan agama untuk menegakkan hukum dan keadilan. Penyelenggaraan sidang gugatan kecil di pengadilan agama menganut asas sederhana, cepat, dan murah. Small Claims Court adalah mekanisme peradilan sederhana di luar mekanisme peradilan biasa untuk menyelesaikan sengketa dengan cepat dan biaya ringan. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pengertian asas cepat, sederhana, dan biaya rendah serta politik hukum penerapan gugatan sederhana di pengadilan agama. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konseptual. Teknik analisis bahan hukum menggunakan metode preskriptif. Hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa asas sederhana, cepat, dan biaya rendah dalam peradilan agama harus memenuhi harapan para pencari keadilan yang selalu menginginkan peradilan yang cepat, adil, dan berbiaya rendah. Penerapan asas peradilan sederhana, cepat, dan berbiaya rendah memiliki nilai keadilan yang hakiki, tidak terlepas dari fungsi pelayanan. Politik hukum pelaksanaan peradilan gugatan kecil di pengadilan agama merupakan langkah terobosan, proses beracara juga cepat dan murah, diputuskan oleh hakim tunggal, dan mekanisme persidangan sederhana Sehingga pelaksanaan peradilan gugatan kecil akan dapat membantu beban sengketa di pengadilan agama.Kata Kunci: kebijakan hukum; small claim courts; pengadilan agama.

De la o factură de electricitate la supremația dreptului european: astfel s-a născut doctrina Costa c. Enel

Whilst Costa vs. ENEL is the locus classicus for most accounts of the primacy of European law, the story of that lawsuit is still relatively unknown. What drove Flaminio Costa to sue his electricity provider over a bill of as little as ₤1.925 (about €22 in 2020)? Why did the Small-claims Court of Milan decide to involve both the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice in such a „petty” lawsuit? Why did those two courts hand down such different rulings? How did the lawsuit end when it came back from Luxembourg? Relying upon previously undisclosed court documents and interviews with some of the actors involved, this paper seeks to shed some light on the less-known aspects of the Costa v ENEL lawsuit, against the background of electricity nationalization in Italy at the height of the Cold War, and to assess the contribution of that lawsuit and of its „architect”, Gian Galeazzo Stendardi, to the approfondissement of the doctrine of primacy of European law.

IMPLEMENTATION OF DEFAULT SETTLEMENT THROUGH A SIMPLE LAWSUIT (Case Study Decision Number: 8/PDT.G.S/2020/PN.Yyk.)

In the principle of civil procedural law in Indonesia, one of which is the principle of simple, fast and low cost. The process of settling a simple lawsuit or commonly referred to as a small claim court is a procedure for examining a civil lawsuit with a maximum value of Rp. 500,000,000 million which was solved with simple procedures and proofs. Problem formulation: 1). How is the simple lawsuit mechanism according to the Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2015 as amended by PERMA Number 4 of 2019 in the implementation of the simple lawsuit trial? And what is the judge's consideration in Decision Number 8/PDT.G.S/2020/PN.Yyk regarding a simple lawsuit? The application of the research method is in the form of normative juridical, meaning that the issues raised, discussed and described in this study are focused on applying the rules or norms in positive law. This study discusses the parties in the Small Claim Court consisting of plaintiffs and defendants, both individuals and legal entities, each of which cannot be more than one, unless they have the same legal interest. The place of residence as stated in Article 4 paragraph (3a) of Perma Number: 4 of 2019 which states that "in the event that the Plaintiff is outside the jurisdiction of the Defendant's residence or domicile, the Plaintiff in filing a lawsuit appoints a proxy, incidental power of attorney, or representative who address in the jurisdiction or domicile of the Defendant with a letter of assignment from the institution”.

Implementation of the Small Claims Court in Dispute Case Settlement in Indonesia

Dispute settlement through the courts (litigation) is perceived as ineffective and costly. The dispute resolution process through the courts is prolonged and time-consuming due to its very formal and very technical review procedure, high costs of the case, and the likelihood of repeated trials. The number of complaints made against citizens unwilling to deal with the judiciary. The Supreme Court with its authority to address the problems of the courts (litigation), namely by ratifying the 2015 Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No. 2 concerning the procedures for the settlement of the Small Claims Court, to allow all elements of society to take a new direction of litigation, namely through Small Claims Court a simple, fast and low-cost lawsuit. With this, it hopes that the judicial process in Indonesia will be well underway in the future.

Delivering justice

This study analyses an important but unstudied site of legal–lay communication: the website discourse of a small claims court. I describe six interactional problems that litigants in small claims court face that the official court metadiscourse, i.e., the court website, does not ably prepare participants for. Problems include: 1) addressees vary enormously in assumed education levels, 2) facework challenges misidentify focal parties, 3) the speech genre is more Q and A than a presentation, 4) limited attention is given to distinguishing fairness from legality, 5) the downside of extensive metadiscourse is not recognised and 6) the variety among judges is given little attention. These problems, I show, are shaped by the existence of two partly contradictory ideals embedded in the practice of small claims interaction, as well as the metadiscourse regarding what counts as good communication. One ideal of small claims court is to see it as a place where disputes can be addressed fairly by an impartial arbitrator. The other ideal is to see small claims as a place where legal rules are applied to disputes to yield a legal solution. The article concludes with suggestions about how to manage the competing ideals.

Review of Syaria Economy Disputes in Religious Courts within the Perspective of Small Claims Court (SCC)

One of the absolute competencies of the Religious Court revolves around resolving sharia economy disputes. Quick, simple and inexpensive principles of the court must persist within Religious Court procedures, such as in sharia economy disputes relating to business disputes as regulated in Supreme Court Decree No. 14 of 2016 on Procedures in Sharia Economic Disputes. The solution in this way should be able to speed up commercial Shia dispute, but in fact, various obstacles were found. This article reviews the resolution of sharia economy disputes in Religious Court within the perspective of Small Claims Court implied through SC Decree No. 14 of 2016, along with the possible issues of Small Claims Court in Religious Court procedures. This research was conducted with a normative approach. Juridically SC Decree No. 14 of 2016 conforms with SC Decree No. 2 of 2015, now replaced with SC Decree No. 4 of 2019, permits parties to resolve certain nominal claims through a quicker dispute settlement procedure. Judges participate actively throughout the dispute resolution as Small Claims Court provides flexible interaction within formal courts. In practice, limitations such as the amount of sharia economy certified judges show that sharia economy cases are better resolved through standard procedure within the Civil Court. Other limitations, such as the insufficient electronic court (e-court) systems, limit dispute resolution capacity with further substantial limitations such as executorial clauses that are not yet regulated and can take more than 25 (twenty-five days).