INDONESIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Chandrawati Dewi, Gustaaf Reerink and Bilal Anwari, ABNR Counsellors at Law
It is uncommon for the KPPU to send written ques - tionnaires to third parties or conduct a “market test” on remedies proposed by the parties. 7.3 Confidentiality The fact of the notification and description of the transaction are no longer made public, as of 2019. See 5.6 Issuance of Decisions . 7.4 Co-Operation With Other Jurisdictions The KPPU co-operates with competition authorities in other jurisdictions on general policy matters and the exchange of general information. As far as the authors are aware, the co-operation does not extend to specific transactions. The KPPU is under an obligation to maintain the con - fidentiality of business secrets obtained from the noti - fying party. 8. Appeals and Judicial Review 8.1 Access to Appeal and Judicial Review Parties cannot appeal the KPPU opinion on merger control, which is also not binding. There is no avenue for judicial review of a KPPU opinion. However, the KPPU’s decisions on violations of the Competition Law can be appealed. Although it is rare, companies that have been subject to penalties for late notification can file an appeal against the KPPU’s decision with the Commercial Court and subsequently file for cassation with the Supreme Court. 8.2 Typical Timeline for Appeals The authority to review competition law cases was transferred from the District Court to the Commercial Court in 2021. The timeframe for the objection phase is between three and 12 months. After receiving the Commercial Court’s decision, the parties may file for cassation with the Supreme Court. The amendment to the Competition Law revoked the requirement for the Supreme Court to issue a decision within 30 days following receipt of the appeal applica - tion. Therefore, it could now take up to 250 days to receive a decision from the Supreme Court at cassa -
tion level. The Supreme Court’s decision is final and binding and no further appeal can be made. 8.3 Ability of Third Parties to Appeal Clearance Decisions Typically, third parties have no right to appeal a KPPU opinion on merger control. Theoretically, they can challenge the KPPU opinion indirectly by filing an administrative lawsuit in the Administrative Court because the KPPU opinion could be deemed as an administrative decision. However, the authors have never seen this approach being tested in court. 9. Foreign Direct Investment/Subsidies Review 9.1 Legislation and Filing Requirements There is a separate “filing”, which must be carried out by the surviving undertaking in the merger transac - tion, with the Ministry of Investment/BKPM through the so-called Online Single Submission (OSS) Sys - tem. The surviving undertaking must update/adjust its investment data and licensing to reflect the merger. The OSS would verify the updated/adjusted invest - ment data and finally the OSS System would issue the adjusted investment data and licensing of the surviving undertaking, covering the data of both the surviving undertaking and the non-surviving (merged) undertaking. The regulation is silent on the timeframe for the merger filing with the OSS System. However, in practice, this filing should be carried out once the deed of merger and merger filing with the MoL is completed. In addition, pursuant to the (i) Presidential Regula - tion No 13 of 2018 on Awareness of Beneficial Own - ers of Corporations to Prevent and Eradicate Money Laundering and Terrorism – Funding and (ii) Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No 15 of 2019 on Implementation by Corporations of “Know Your Beneficial Owner” Principles (collectively, the “UBO Regulations”), all corporations, including companies, foundations, co-operatives, firms, associations and
327 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook