Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Happy Rayna Stephany, Yanuar Pribadhie
The Supreme Court has decided in favor of a judicial review petition against Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 1 of 2013. The Regulation sets outs provisions on receiver’s fees.
The Supreme Court found that the Regulation contradicts Law No 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payments.
Under the Regulation, receiver’s fees are solely imposed on the bankruptcy petitioner. In contrast, Article 17(3) of the Bankruptcy Law provides that judges may impose curator fees on both petitioners and debtors. In other words, the Bankruptcy Law gives authority to judges to determine which party must pay receiver’s fees rather than the Minister of Law and Human Rights.
Nien Rafles Siregar, one of the petitioners, applauded the Supreme Court Decision and sees this as a victory for many parties including receivers, creditors in bankruptcy cases, and bankruptcy petitioners.
“This means a lot not only to receivers as petitioners, but also to the law itself. This is a victory of the law,” exclaimed Nien.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights remains unavailable for comment although Fredy Haris, Secretary of the Directorate General of General Legal Administration at the Ministry, said that his institution is yet to receive the decision.
(hot/kc)
The Supreme Court has decided in favor of a judicial review petition against Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 1 of 2013. The Regulation sets outs provisions on receiver’s fees.
The Supreme Court found that the Regulation contradicts Law No 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payments.
Under the Regulation, receiver’s fees are solely imposed on the bankruptcy petitioner. In contrast, Article 17(3) of the Bankruptcy Law provides that judges may impose curator fees on both petitioners and debtors. In other words, the Bankruptcy Law gives authority to judges to determine which party must pay receiver’s fees rather than the Minister of Law and Human Rights.
Nien Rafles Siregar, one of the petitioners, applauded the Supreme Court Decision and sees this as a victory for many parties including receivers, creditors in bankruptcy cases, and bankruptcy petitioners.
“This means a lot not only to receivers as petitioners, but also to the law itself. This is a victory of the law,” exclaimed Nien.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights remains unavailable for comment although Fredy Haris, Secretary of the Directorate General of General Legal Administration at the Ministry, said that his institution is yet to receive the decision.
(hot/kc)
Happy Rayna Stephany, Yanuar Pribadhie
The Supreme Court has decided in favor of a judicial review petition against Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 1 of 2013. The Regulation sets outs provisions on receiver’s fees.
The Supreme Court found that the Regulation contradicts Law No 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payments.
Under the Regulation, receiver’s fees are solely imposed on the bankruptcy petitioner. In contrast, Article 17(3) of the Bankruptcy Law provides that judges may impose curator fees on both petitioners and debtors. In other words, the Bankruptcy Law gives authority to judges to determine which party must pay receiver’s fees rather than the Minister of Law and Human Rights.
Nien Rafles Siregar, one of the petitioners, applauded the Supreme Court Decision and sees this as a victory for many parties including receivers, creditors in bankruptcy cases, and bankruptcy petitioners.
“This means a lot not only to receivers as petitioners, but also to the law itself. This is a victory of the law,” exclaimed Nien.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights remains unavailable for comment although Fredy Haris, Secretary of the Directorate General of General Legal Administration at the Ministry, said that his institution is yet to receive the decision.
(hot/kc)
The Supreme Court has decided in favor of a judicial review petition against Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 1 of 2013. The Regulation sets outs provisions on receiver’s fees.
The Supreme Court found that the Regulation contradicts Law No 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payments.
Under the Regulation, receiver’s fees are solely imposed on the bankruptcy petitioner. In contrast, Article 17(3) of the Bankruptcy Law provides that judges may impose curator fees on both petitioners and debtors. In other words, the Bankruptcy Law gives authority to judges to determine which party must pay receiver’s fees rather than the Minister of Law and Human Rights.
Nien Rafles Siregar, one of the petitioners, applauded the Supreme Court Decision and sees this as a victory for many parties including receivers, creditors in bankruptcy cases, and bankruptcy petitioners.
“This means a lot not only to receivers as petitioners, but also to the law itself. This is a victory of the law,” exclaimed Nien.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights remains unavailable for comment although Fredy Haris, Secretary of the Directorate General of General Legal Administration at the Ministry, said that his institution is yet to receive the decision.
(hot/kc)