企业混合合并的竞争法分析

企业合并控制制度一直是各国反垄断法中的重要内容。随着我国经济逐步融入全球经济和市场经济的不断发展，企业合并的经营者集中越来越成为我国企业的普遍选择，其中混合合并因为便于企业实现多元化经营和经营战略转移形成效率抗辩，且一般不直接限制或妨碍竞争而与反垄断法无涉，从而形成市场和政府的双重偏好。然而通过非合作效应和合作效应分析可以得出混合合并在一定条件下也会产生反竞争效果。近年来，欧盟、澳大利亚的立法变革都明显提高了对混合合并反竞争效果的立法警觉。我国需要从竞争法视角重新审视企业混合合并，对其反垄断规制要坚持效率抗辩和整体权衡，反对弊大于利的合并，使混合合并在我国经济发展中避害扬善。     

企业合并行为的竞争法分析

对企业合并进行控制是竞争法的基本内容,而其中最核心的问题,是评价企业合并行为所依据的实体标准。基本内容包括对合并行为的反竞争影响,及其产生的积极效果。由于企业合并主要是通过改变市场结构而影响竞争,因而在对其进行分析时,一般首先分析合并行为对所在市场集中度产生的影响,这主要通过赫芬达尔指数来反映,对于发生在指数较低的市场上,或发生在集中度较高的市场上,但并未导致指数大幅度提高的企业合并行为,认定其不会产生严重的反竞争效果,可以批准。其他的合并行为则要由竞争主管机关进一步分析,主要考察该行为的反竞争效果,包括单边效果与协调效果;然后再考察存在哪些抵消因素。经过比较后,如果积极效果大于消极效果,则予以批准。     

The Limits of the Harm Principle

The harm principle, understood as the normative requirement that conduct should be criminalized only if it is harmful, has difficulty in dealing with those core cases of criminal wrongdoing that can occur without causing any direct harm. Advocates of the harm principle typically find it implausible to hold that these core cases should not be crimes and so usually seek out some indirect harm that can justify criminalizing the seemingly harmless conduct. But this strategy justifies criminalization of a wide range of conduct on the basis of the fear, worry, and anxiety it generates among those who are not the direct victims of the conduct, and thereby undermines the limiting role of the harm principle by permitting the very move it was meant to prevent: the criminalization of harmless conduct on the ground of others’ feelings about it. The best way to avoid this dilemma is to recognize that people have rights, operating independently of the harm principle, to be treated in certain ways just because they are persons. The existence of such rights provides a ground for both criminalizing conduct and limiting the scope of criminalization because these rights point both to conduct that people must be permitted to engage in (regardless of its harmful effects) and conduct that might well be criminalized (though it is not harmful). A complete account of criminal law will therefore require the harm principle to work together with an independent account of rights.     

從匯源果汁收購案看中國的企業兼并審查

2009年3月18日中國商務部發布第22號公告决定禁止美國可口可樂公司（簡稱可口可樂公司〉與中國匯源果汁集團有限公司〈簡稱匯源公司〉收購申請。從商,公告看,禁止合并的理由主要包括： 1.收購完成後,可口可樂公司有能力將其在碳酸軟飲料市場上的支配地位傳導到果汁飲料市場,對現有果汁飲料企業産生排除、限制競争效果。     

THE CHURCH REPORT'S ANALYSIS OF VERTICAL AND CONGLOMERATE MERGERS: A REPLY TO COOPER, FROEB, O'BRIEN, AND VITA

I respond to concerns raised by James Cooper, Luke Froeb, DanO'Brien, and Michael Vita regarding the analysis of verticaland conglomerate mergers contained in my report to the EuropeanCommission. I address their arguments that the raising rivals'costs literature does not support an aggressive stance on verticalmergers; that market power is a necessary, but not a sufficient,condition for a non-horizontal merger to raise antitrust concerns;and that efficiencies intrinsic to a non-horizontal merger shouldbe treated in the second step of the proposed structured ruleof reason framework.     

Legal skills and the SQE: confronting the challenge head on

Whether the teaching and assessment of practical legal skills and professional conduct should be focused at the academic or vocational stage of legal education has been considered numerous times, with recommendations made and varying degrees of implementation carried out. With the approval of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination being granted by the Legal Services Board this issue is once again being brought into focus. The end of the Legal Practice Course will result in the required compulsory teaching and assessment of core practical legal skills and professional conduct being removed from legal education. The question therefore is whether legal education should incorporate practical legal skills and professional conduct into teaching and assessment at the academic stage and, if so, how can this be achieved in a way that complements rather than distracts from the study of academic law. This study will consider the recommendations made in relation to practical legal skills and professional conduct over the last five decades and identify possible options for the embedding of practical legal skills and professional conduct in the law curriculum at undergraduate level.     

个人信息作为企业资产——企业并购中的个人信息保护与经营者权益平衡

企业并购是厘定个人信息权利与经营者权益边界的重要场景之一。在单纯的股权收购、企业的合并、分立与形式变更等情形下,原则上不产生个人信息保护的问题。在资产收购的情形下,则涉及个人数据的转让,但此时应考虑收购双方及目标公司债权人的合理利益。在美国法与欧盟法上,对于资产收购均存在数据传输无需用户同意的例外处理机制。这些机制的核心是数据主体与企业之间的利益衡量,一方面从数据主体的利益出发,考虑在资产收购后数据原本的使用目的是否能够实现;另一方面则从企业的利益出发,考虑其对于数据交易是否具有合理利益。在并购双方对于用户数据转让存在合理利益的基础上,应允许企业在并购中转移个人数据,但应给予用户事先或事后作出相反选择的权利。     

Eu merger control and the compatibility test:a review of recent developments

The compatibility test contained in Article 2 of the Merger Control Regulation (MCR) is at the very heart of EU merger control, for it determines whether a concentration with a community dimension is deemed compatible or incompatible with the common market. Incompatibility can lead to prohibition of a concentration, although this is rare. The paper reviews the recent developments to the conditions of the test itself as well as the analytical methods employed to determine compatibility. Concerning the former, the new foreseeable dominance interpretation, put forward by the European Commission and made law by the Court of First Instance (CFI), is explored. This new variant of the dominance condition is important on its own right but it is also of major interest because of the explicit legal requirement placed on the Commission to assess the future likelihood of abusive behaviour by the merging parties in its prospective analysis. This is not the case with the original dominance compatibility condition. The unexpected but important clarification by the CFI of the notion of substantial part of the common market, as contained in the express wording of the compatibility test, is also commented upon. Concerning the determination of compatibility, the Commission's controversial employment in certain conglomerate concentrations of the range effects of competitive harm theory is examined, as is the need to take cognisance of merger specific efficiencies when determining if a merger increases societal welfare. The EU is making progress toward such an efficiencies assessment as part of the compatibility determination. EU merger control – and hence the compatibility test – do not exist in a vacuum. The EU has played a major role in shaping the new multilateral architecture and its goal of increasing international convergence in competition matters. This in turn has led the EU to rethink the nature of the compatibility test. For example, it has sought to evaluate the dominance condition of the compatibility test with the substantial lessening of competition (SLC) approach used by some other regulators, like the US. The paper concludes by looking at a fundamental issue that has arisen from recent CFI judgements and the GE/Honeywell merger: the competence of the Commission, or more accurately the Merger Task Force (MTF), to carry out the compatibility determination. Proposals are outlined so as to ensure that the Commission's prospective analysis in a concentration case meets the requisite legal standard. It is essential for this standard to be met if EU merger control is to remain credible. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Natural justice and the coroner

In R v Doogan (2005) 158 ACTR 1; 193 FLR 239; [2005] ACTSC 74 the Full Court of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court made what is arguably thus far the most extensive Australian appellate decision on coronial law and procedure. The court made findings on the nature of coroners' inquests into fires and deaths, the ways in which the parameters of inquests should be determined and the circumstances in which the conduct of coroners and the counsel assisting them could amount to conduct which would lead the hypothetical disinterested bystander to conclude that the coroner was biased. The decision is a contextually sophisticated analysis. One of its consequences is that it will be difficult for parties to have coroners disqualified for apprehended bias. More generally, though, the decision will lend significant assistance for the recurrent difficulty of evaluating when matters sought to be traversed are outside the proper parameters of a coroner's inquest.     

试论持有的性质与持有型犯罪的特征

持有在法律性质上属于行为,在法律归属上既不属于作为,也不属于不作为,应属于独立的第三行为方式。持有型犯罪与其他类型犯罪相比具有双重法定性、犯罪客体的多样性、认定上的排他性等独特特征。     

精神权利的困境——两大法系版权立法比较分析

经济进步与科技发展,为作者精神权利带来了严峻挑战。精神权利何去何从,已成为理论界热点问题。两大法系有关精神权利的立法进程及模式,可以带给我们启迪。应当摒弃英美法系版权法之"弱保护"模式,重视精神权利在财产方面的激励作用;还应当纠正大陆法系将精神权利作为纯粹人格权之立法模式,挖掘精神权利的财产属性。在融合中发展,在发展中完善,唯有如此,精神权利才能最终摆脱困境。     

THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT INACCURACIES IN MERGER SIMULATION MODELS

This paper considers the role that merger simulation modelsshould play in European merger control. The use of these models,as off-the-shelf instruments to assess the economic effectsof mergers, has become increasingly widespread in recent years.However, contrary to some claims, merger simulation models donot allow investigators to avoid much of the competitive effectsanalysis relating to the relevant economic market, nor do theynecessarily provide more precision to merger control. Withoutunderstanding the limitations of such models and the circumstancesunder which they can and should be usefully applied, they maynot just be useless, but dangerous in the sense of providingpossibly spurious results with spurious claimed accuracy. Thispaper argues that any merger simulation models used should be"bespoke" models, rather than off-the-shelf models, but cautionsthat even bespoke models will frequently not be as useful asis often claimed. This is not to deny that there are occasionswhen well-constructed bespoke models are genuinely useful anddo offer genuine improvements in merger control.     

The GE/Honeywell merger controversy and the path to analytical convergence in international merger assessment: A critical commentary

Globalisation, with its concomitant rise in international merger activity, allied to the proliferation of merger control regimes vetting such activity, increases the likelihood of two or more competition authorities reaching divergent decisions in the same case. This article reveals that this situation arose in the proposed merger between two US-based companies, General Electric (GE) and Honeywell, with the EU prohibiting the merger, and the US Department of Justice approving it. Further, it discusses the analytical and interpretational differences which led to those divergent outcomes. The analytical debate centres on the appropriateness of the two theoretical approaches used to assess proposed mergers, with the EU using the range effects of competitive harm approach and the US giving greater weight to an economic efficiencies merger defence. The fallout from the GE/Honeywell case has given added impetus to progress analytical convergence in relation to the vetting of international mergers. This has found expression at the multilateral level, which links to EU initiatives. The article predicts that the EU is highly likely to incorporate an economic efficiencies defence into its merger control law, bringing it into line with other key players. Of course, analytical convergence cannot guarantee that interpretational differences will not arise, as was evident in aspects of the GE/Honeywell case. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

犯罪控制的惩罚主义及其效果

1979年以来我国刑事立法和司法忽视或遗忘了刑法的特征与内在价值,高估了刑法影响人的行为的可能性,刑法一直保持着在功能化方向上的惯性,刑罚结构和刑罚适用面临着重刑主义的突出问题。我国的犯罪控制存在着惩罚主义的结构特征,然而惩罚主义的意愿和努力,并没能有效遏制犯罪规模和犯罪的总体严重程度迅猛发展的势头。在刑事政策和刑罚体系的主导思想没有做出重大调整前,刑罚轻缓化的改革仍然任重道远。     

论管制规范在侵权行为法上的意义

一个加害行为违反或者没有违反相关管制规范的事实,对于侵权行为的判定会产生什么样的影响?从公法与私法相互关系的视角来思考可以深化对此问题的理解。管制规范中的防止侵害型规范,是以保护他人利益为目的,对侵权行为法具有直接意义。在侵权行为法的适用过程中,此种类型的管制规范作为私法规范的一种补充,其评判与裁判功能将有机会得以显现,并主要体现在侵权裁判的论证负担上。     

美国性骚扰法律制度及其借鉴意义

性骚扰是不受欢迎的带有性色彩的言行,是一种非法的性歧视。依美国判例,性骚扰不必源于性的目的,其内容不必是直接的表示;同时,性骚扰行为者在主观上应当是有过错的,受害者在主观上须为不欢迎骚扰行为。构成可诉的性骚扰行为其损害后果须达到严重的程度。依美国最新判例,同性之间也可以构成性骚扰;雇主对员工中的上级职员的性骚扰行为承担民事责任。美国的性骚扰法律制度对我国的立法具有一定的借鉴意义,如公法上的规定并不排除私法的适用,性骚扰的含义应当包含性别歧视,雇主责任应当在立法上得以确立,立法者应当在道德规范和法律规范中寻找平衡点。     

欧盟法对企业合并的规制

企业合并是当今各国优化产业结构和企业组织结构的重要手段,也是企业迅速扩张、提高规模经济效益和国际竞争力的有效手段.然而,经济力量的集中和由此导致的市场结构的改变,容易产生或加强市场支配力量,从而起到排除或限制竞争的作用.为了防止企业通过并购实现或加强市场支配地位,维护市场上的竞争秩序,对一定规模以上的企业并购交易进行反垄断审查,已成为市场经济国家设计和实施反垄断法的通行做法.目前,已有七十多个国家建立了企业并购控制机制.其中十分引人注目的是,欧盟于上世纪90年代初建立了企业合并控制机制,并于2004年进行了改革.到目前为止,欧盟竞争总司作出的并购审查决定已达两千多件,在此过程中积累了丰富的经验.拟对欧盟企业合并控制制度的建立、理论、程序及实体规则进行研究,并就中国企业合并控制制度的现状及发展提出自己的看法.     

THE PROHIBITION OF THE PROPOSED SPRINGER-PROSIEBENSAT.1 MERGER: HOW MUCH ECONOMICS IN GERMAN MERGER CONTROL?

We review the Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office Germany)decision on the proposed merger between Springer and ProSiebenSat.1from an economic point of view. In doing so, it is not our goalto analyze whether the controversial decision by the Bundeskartellamthas been correct or flawed from a legal point of view. Instead,we analyze whether the economic reasoning in the decision documentreflects state-of-the-art economic theory on conglomerate mergers.Regarding such types of mergers, anticompetitive effects eitherdo not occur regularly or are more often than not overcompensatedby efficiency gains, so that a standard welfare perspectivedemands reluctance concerning antitrust interventions. Thisis particularly true if two-sided markets, like media markets,are involved. However, anticompetitive conglomerate mergersare not impossible, in particular in neighboring markets wherethere is some relationship between the products of the mergingcompanies. In line with the more-economic approach in Europeanmerger control, a particular thorough line of argumentation,backed with particularly convincing economic evidence, is necessaryto justify a prohibition of a conglomerate merger from an economicpoint of view. Against this background, we do not find the reasoningof the Bundeskartellamt entirely convincing and sufficientlystrong to justify a prohibition of the proposed combinationfrom an economic perspective. The reasons are that (i) the Bundeskartellamtfails to continuously consider consumer and customer welfareas the relevant standards, (ii) positive efficiency and welfareeffects of cross-media strategies are neglected, (iii) in contrast,the competition agency sometimes appears to view profitabilityof post-merger strategy options to be per se anticompetitive(efficiency offence), (iv) the incontestability of the relevantmarkets is not sufficiently substantiated, (v) inconsistenciesoccur regarding the symmetry of the TV advertising market duopolyversus the unique role of the Bild-Zeitung and (vi) the employmentof modern economic instruments appears to be underdeveloped.Thus, we conclude that the Bundeskartellamt has not embracedthe European more-economic approach in the analyzed decision.However, one can discuss whether economic effects are overcompensatedin this case by concerns about a reduction in diversity of opinionand threats to free speech. Similar to the Bundeskartellamt,we do not consider these concerns in our analysis.     

法官能动性与公正再论

法院的判决宣示着法的精神,引导着民众的行为.诉诸于法院各种诉讼请求,即是将各种矛盾呈现在法官面前.法官必须判断何种诉求为正当,只有当案件事实符合法律规范的构成要件,且案件事实中蕴涵的法律价值和所适用的法律规范的价值取向相一致时,才可以依据该法律规范对案件事实作出判决.法官在运用国家的制定法以回应民众的要求时,将一些明显不当的有违民意的规定加以过滤,能动地对制定法加以填充修正.刘荣军教授亦言:"处于社会与国家立法机关之间的司法,应当以并不完整的法律作为基本的支撑,寻找制定法之外的法源,将社会的正义、公平的观念和价值导入司法程序之中,创造出能够解压、还原法律本意的规则,以作为裁判的依据."     

试论我国反垄断法的域外适用——以"两拓"合并案为视角

反垄断法的城外适用是有其理论基础的,"两拓"并购案促使我们有必要分析我国反垄断法域外适用的依据及可行性,从而对我国适用反垄断法以规制跨国公司并购对我国产生的负面影响进行探讨,进而督促我们更好地反思和完善我国反垄断法的域外适用机制.