关于低于成本价销售行为的法律思考

从反垄断法角度分析低于成水价销售行为 一、立法现状 一般地说，反垄断法以维护竞争自由为主要目的，以狭义的竞争关系，即商品之间具有替代关系的经营者之间的相互争夺交易机会的关系为调整对象。①各国大都在《反垄断法》中规制限制竞争的低于成本价销售行为。从反垄断法考察低于成本价销售行为是否合法．正是在狭义的竞争关系中识别经营者的降价行为，是合法的行使自己的自主经营定价权、还是将低于成本销售作为排挤竞争对手的手段，而成为破坏相关市场的自由竞争秩序的限制竞争行为。我国现行规制限制市场竞争的低于成本价销售行为的法…     

论我国反垄断法对滥用市场支配地位的规制

禁止滥用市场支配地位的法律制度又称为独占禁止制度，一直是困扰反垄断执法的难题。本文运用比较分析和规范分析等方法对我国反垄断法上的独占禁止制度进行了分析和评论，阐明了构成滥用市场支配地位的法律要件和原理，认为我国反垄断法的相关规定基本符合反垄断法的原理，同时指出我国在执法中应以合理原则为指导，在明晰法律要件的基础上重点打击典型的排斥竞争行为。     

中欧垄断协议规制对限制竞争的理解

<正>一、导论我国《反垄断法》第13条第2款规定:"本法所称垄断协议,是指排除、限制竞争的协议、决定或者其他协同行为。"可见,排除、限制竞争是认定垄断协议的核心要件。我国执法机构在认定《反垄断法》第13条第1款、第14条所禁止的垄断协议时,皆须证明相关行为是否符合《反垄断法》第13条第2款对排除、限制竞争的要求。〔1〕欧盟对限制竞争协议的界定与我国《反垄断法》对垄断协议的定义相似。《欧盟运行条约》第101条(原《欧     

论联合限制竞争行为的法律规制--《中华人民共和国反垄断法(草拟稿)》的相关部分评析

联合限制竞争行为是一种反竞争性质非常明显的非结构性垄断行为 ,禁止联合限制竞争行为制度是反垄断法中最受关注、制裁也最严厉的部分。 2 0 0 3年 1 0月的《中华人民共和国反垄断法 (草拟稿 )》对联合限制竞争行为的界定与构成、横向限制与纵向限制、豁免规定以及处理原则和程序制度等问题进行了规制。与其他国家和地区的反垄断法相比 ,这些规定还要作相应的调整。     

行政性限制竞争行为的法律规制

行政垄断是我国《反垄断法》立法过程中颇有争议的难题。以往对该问题的研究仅局限于将其视为我国反垄断法特有的问题 ,事实上 ,反对行政性限制竞争行为是各国反垄断法都可能面临的任务 ,更是经济体制转轨国家反垄断法的重要任务和特色。文章在深入剖析反垄断法对行政性限制竞争行为进行规范的必要性、合理性的基础上 ,就我国反垄断法如何规范行政性限制竞争行为提出了具体的、可操作性的立法建议。     

特许经营限制竞争行为反垄断法适用的若干问题

特许经营合同中一般均有限制竞争的条款,特许经营的限制竞争行为是一个比较复杂的问题,这些限制竞争行为既具有合理的一面,也有可能因影响市场的竞争秩序从而受到反垄断法的规制。因此,反垄断法适用时,必须综合考量多种因素,才不致于产生干预市场经济自由竞争的负面效果。我国应加强对特许经营反垄断法适用的基本问题研究,明确反垄断执法时的宗旨,适用的前提条件和实施模式,从而保证和促进特许经营在我国的健康发展。     

论反垄断法理论体系之构建

反垄断法包括禁止联合限制竞争行为、禁止滥用市场支配地位、禁止行政垄断、企业合并审查四大部分,本文以垄断力来源的不同,通过采用动态的经济学分析方法对它们进行比较研究,从理论上深刻地揭示了它们之间的经济法律性质及其动态变化关系,为构建有机的反垄断法理论体系进行了有力的理论探索。     

企业合资行为的反垄断法考察

不当的合资行为因其与垄断的密切联系,可能造成对现有竞争秩序的破坏,对市场经济带来危害。因此,规范企业合资行为,有效防止企业利用合资的合理、合法外衣,从事限制竞争行为,降低企业间串谋的可能性,成了反垄断法研究领域的新课题。试从合资行为的概念、合资行为限制竞争的种种表现分析着手,对反垄断法规制合资行为的实体规则、程序规则和执行机构进行设想和探讨。     

价格合谋的识别与规制——基于反垄断法视角的分析

价格合谋是危害最严重的限制竞争行为,是反垄断执法的重点和难点。我国《反垄断法》列举典型价格合谋行为并予以严格禁止,主要适用的是本身违法原则。在现行的价格合谋反垄断执法框架下,应进一步完善价格合谋的识别要件,明确引入合理原则,建立综合性惩处机制。     

论对标准化中专利行使行为的反垄断法调整

近年来标准化中由专利行使行为所引起的各种法律纠纷在学界和业界引发了热烈讨论。在标准的制定和实施过程中,由于信息不对称,容易导致专利劫持和技术锁定且可能会排除、限制竞争。有鉴于此,各标准化组织纷纷制定专利政策,如信息披露制度和RAND许可原则对标准化中的专利权行使行为进行事前预防;但如果相关专利权行使行为已经对竞争产生了限制和排除作用,则需要反垄断法进行事后纠正。就目前而言,美国和欧盟的反垄断法执法机构主要关注违背专利信息披露义务、RAND许可原则下寻求禁令救济、通过专利转让规避专利许可声明这三类较为典型的专利权行使行为。相比之下,我国2013年的《工商行政管理机关禁止滥用知识产权、排除限制竞争行为的规定(征求意见稿)》第12条虽然对经营者利用标准的制定和实施从事排除、限制竞争行为进行了规定,但尚有一些不足之处;未来,应结合反垄断法规范标准化中专利权行使行为的要点,针对我国相关司法和行政执法实际情况进行完善。     

反垄断法中联合限制竞争行为的比较研究

联合限制竞争行为的主体必须为两个或两个以上,且目的在于限制竞争;根据不同的分类法,可将其分为横向与纵向、协议与协同、禁止与豁免等种类;考虑其在经济上既能产生消极效果亦能产生积极效果,因此不能简单适用本身违法原则,有时需通过经济学分析以区别豁免情形;欧美竞争法规制联合限制竞争行为在立法体例、价值目标、执法机制、例外制度方面等均不尽相同;我国反垄断立法应以欧美竞争立法经验为基础,同时体现我国的特色.     

The Damage Done: Cocaine Methods in Detroit

The pro-competitive antitrust doctrine has originated in the free-market economies of Western capitalist countries but with economic transformations in Eastern Europe the doctrine ceased to be an exclusive Western concept. Using the example of the Polish law on combating Trust in the National Economy of 1987, the author demonstrates the spread of the antitrust doctrine from capitalism to socialism. Apart from these changes, the doctrine has been spreading on the international level because increasingly it has found application not only within particular countries but also with regard to trade and commerce between and among countries. The multidimensional nature of the antitrust doctrine has important implications for combating both domestic and international antitrust crime. The efficiency of efforts to combat abuse of a dominant market position, limiting access to the market or other forms of restraining competition will depend increasingly on the degree to which organs responsible for fighting antitrust crimes are willing to benefit from the multi-dimensional nature of the antitrust doctrine.     

The balance between equity and efficiency; reflections on the goals of the new Nigerian competition law

In January 2019, the Nigerian Government finally enacted its first competition law after several attempts to do so previously failed. Since all competition regimes advance one or more goals, the paper provides a critical evaluation of what the goals of the Nigerian Competition Law ‘is’ or ‘are’ and/or what they should be. This paper posits that discussion on goals must relate fundamentally to the true reason(s) the nation ‘needs’ an antitrust legislation and the relationship between these reasons (as reflected in the preamble of the legislation) and the prohibitory aspects of the law.Although the goal of competition is generally thought to be relating to promoting economic efficiency, however, for developing countries (including Nigeria), competition must compose of an important equity dimension. Ironically, the work uses the ‘developed’ experience of the EU in later stages to show that the goals of an antitrust policy are never static but dynamic and may not necessarily always admit of ‘efficiency’ considerations. This paper’s argument is that Nigeria needs a welfarist approach to competition which means efficiency should sit as a top objective and that any compromise on economic efficiency as the goal must be accommodated only to the extent that basic principles of a market driven competition is not harmed. Consequently, the work reflects on how the new Nigerian law has provided a balance between market efficiency and other goals of competition and how the new Nigerian competition body can operationalise this balance in the development of the nation’s antitrust policy. In this regard, the EU also provides some important enforcement lessons.     

互联网企业市场支配地位认定的理论反思与制度重构

随着互联网市场的发展,我国司法实践中适用的判断经营者市场支配地位的方案受到了严峻挑战。在互联网市场上,市场份额的计算方法受到质疑,市场份额对衡量经营者市场竞争力的判断作用已经退化。在我国对市场份额证据严格限制的实证法背景下,我国司法实践中推行的"单一市场结构方案"既不能适用于互联网市场中的垄断行为规制,也不符合我国反垄断的立法规定,是必须摈弃的一种落后观念。因应互联网市场的形成,根据我国《反垄断法》的立法宗旨和基本精神,应当在反垄断司法实践中贯彻"综合标准方案",既不简单反对可以根据市场份额推定经营者的市场支配地位,又充分考虑市场进入壁垒、市场竞争状况等其他因素对经营者市场支配地位的影响。     

不争执条款的反垄断法分析

知识产权许可协议中的不争执条款既有阻碍竞争的消极影响,也有其积极的一面。美国、日本、欧盟在认定不争执条款的效力时采用了基本相同的方法,即一般指导原则下的个案分析。它们运用一套以反垄断法为基础的具体规则,将宏观经济背景、技术发展水平、市场结构状态、权利质疑成本等因素类型化、具体化,主要依合理原则进行考量,协调知识产权政策和竞争政策的变化。我国应当甄别性地借鉴国外的成熟经验,不断完善不争执条款的立法和执法。     

反垄断诉讼的价值定位与制度建构

反垄断诉讼是反垄断法实施的重要机制之一,是反垄断法理论研究和司法实践中的重要问题。对此问题有两种研究思路：一是以个人权利为中心,将诉讼看作争议解决机制;二是以秩序建构为中心,将诉讼看作建构理想秩序的重要机制。反垄断法的产生、发展与有机社会的生成同步。垄断行为属于风险行为,其造成的损害具有不确定性、延伸性、难以恢复性,因而反垄断法属于现代社会规制法。与此相应,反垄断诉讼应是秩序建构诉讼,在价值上注重竞争秩序的建构,在功能上主张司法能动、积极回应社会在竞争上形成的价值共识,在构造上主张放宽原告条件,建立多元参与的诉讼机制。     

论反垄断法适用除外制度的理论基础

适用除外制度之所以成为反垄断法的一项重要制度,有其深刻的经济基础和法律基础。从经济基础上讲,垄断与竞争均是利弊兼具,垄断并不必然消灭竞争,甚至会使竞争加剧。适用除外制度的确立,有利于发挥垄断的积极作用, 克服竞争的某些消极作用。从法律基础上讲,反垄断法要解决虽然属于垄断、但又不予禁止的技术问题,只有通过适用除外制度加以解决;另一方面,适用除外制度还是反垄断法与其他法律进行协调的一项必不可少的措施。     

COMPETITION POLICY IN CHINA AND ITS RELEVANCE TO SMES

Competition policy has great relevance to all the firms in any economy. Even though it is unlikely that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have enough market power to constrain competition through a misuse of such power, they may still face prosecution if they are involved in a boycott of competitors or suppliers, price-fixing, output-restriction and other monopoly agreements. This article discusses antitrust issues pertaining to SMEs with a focus on China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) and its implementation rules. Contrary to the popular view that SMEs benefit from competition laws, evidence shows that they are reluctant to get involved in antitrust litigation against large firms partly because of the high legal costs involved. There is an urgent need to promote an awareness of antitrust compliance in China and to educate SMEs about the need to avoid breaching the new antitrust law and its associated regulations. In the meantime, SMEs should take full advantage of the antitrust laws to fight against the abuse of market dominance directed at them, and to gain equal opportunities to market access.     

Can Common Business Practices Ever Be Anticompetitive? Redefining Monopolization

For most of its modern history, antitrust law distinguished between normal competition and monopolization by looking for merit, legitimate business justifications, or efficiencies in the challenged business conduct. These proxies were seen as appropriate because they served antitrust law's welfare objectives well. However, the universal adoption of these proxies has overshadowed significant shortcomings, chief among them being that firms do not think in terms of legitimate business justifications or efficiencies, but rather in terms of long-term sustainability and appropriation of value. As a result, antitrust law becomes detached from the very subjects it purports to regulate. Against the backdrop of the recent resurgence of enforcement activity, particularly involving tech giants, this article attempts a conceptualization of monopolization that does not revolve around merit in any form or function. Instead it introduces the proxy of commonness of business practices to determine their legality. This helps highlight the importance of considering “how things are done” in the relevant market, and helps reground antitrust law in business realities, which can enhance the heuristic mechanism of distinguishing between normal and anticompetitive practices. To prove this point the article develops an error test framework, through which it compares current tests with the proposed test in terms of their error footprint and concludes that the integration of the commonness parameter delivers better results. Ultimately, the inquiry undertaken herein is not only about constructing a conception of normal competition different from the only standard we currently have, that is, variants of merit, but also about shifting the conversation from how to fine-tune existing standards to how to capture a more complete conception of competition.     

小议欧盟第1419/2006号条例对班轮航运业的影响

国际航运反垄断豁免制度作为一种行业豁免制度,是指通过立法赋予航运业中具有垄断性质的行为以反垄断豁免,它是一般反垄断豁免在国际航运业的体现。目前各航运发达国家,如美国、加拿大等,都在法律中确定了有关反垄断法在国际航运领域的适用例外。2006年9月欧盟竞争委员会颁布了旨在取消班轮公会反垄断豁免的第1419/2006号条例。从班轮市场集中度、市场运力、市场运价、市场竞争力等方面,分析该条例对包括中国在内的各利益相关方的影响,指出该条例的生效仍将延续班轮航运业的垄断态势。