我国反垄断法中垄断协议违法性的分析模式

我国《反垄断法》将垄断协议定义为“排除、限制竞争”的协议,但未对“排除、限制竞争”作出解释。构成要件的模糊性使得反垄断执法机构与法院在处理垄断协议案件时选择了不同的分析模式,进而产生了同种行为不同认定的情况。2022年新修订的《反垄断法》关于垄断协议定义及纵向垄断协议的修改,试图统一垄断协议违法性的分析模式,但相关规定仍然存在理解分歧。鉴于我国《反垄断法》“垄断协议”一章的规定与《欧盟运行条约》第101条在语言表述和逻辑关系上高度相似,建议我国法下的垄断协议认定可采取欧盟的“两步走”分析模式：第一步适用禁止条款,仅评估消极效果（排除、限制竞争效果）,以确定相关行为是否属于反垄断法的调整范围;第二步适用豁免条款,再评估积极效果（促进竞争效果）,并对积极效果与消极效果进行比较,作出终局性的法律性质判定。     

垄断协议组织帮助行为条款缺陷及其补救

我国《反垄断法》新设的垄断协议组织帮助条款克服了传统垄断协议二分法困境，但仍存在适用范围窄、行为要件不明确、与其他条款协调适用规则不完备等问题。对此，应当遵循统一性、周延性和区分性原则，重塑垄断协议组织帮助条款体系，以涵盖非行业协会型经营者团体和行政机关等其他主体；明确组织帮助的作用对象为垄断协议达成或实施，主观上具有故意，表现方式为组建、策划、指挥、发起、召集等，以及提供实质性帮助，结果上导致排除、限制竞争的后果或危险且行为与结果具有促进因果关系的行为要件。同时基于高效便捷、有效追责的价值目标，建立与共同市场支配地位滥用条款等协调适用的规则体系。     

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     

限制最低转售价格协议并非当然违法?——与上海市高级人民法院民三庭庭长朱丹商榷

"限制最低转售价格协议是否当然违法"的争论焦点是"限制最低转售价格协议是否垄断协议"的问题。通过审判全国首例纵向垄断协议纠纷案,上海高院认为垄断协议应以具有排除、限制竞争效果为构成要件,限制最低转售价格协议并不当然违法。对此,笔者全面考察《反垄断法》第14条后,认为列举项本身构成垄断协议,因此作为列举项之一的限制最低转售价格协议当然违法。上海高院的结论有三处欠妥:曲解了《最高人民法院关于审理因垄断行为引发的民事纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的规定》第7条的含义;对《反垄断法》宗旨的理解太过片面;削弱《反垄断法》权威的同时,使行政机关陷入执法的窘境。     

论纵向限制竞争协议

反不正当竞争法、反垄断法的一个重要的立法目的就是要防止限制竞争行为的发生,促进有效的竞争秩序的形成,大大地推进社会生产力的发展。规范限制竞争协议是各国反垄断立法的重要内容之一。纵向限制竞争协议作为限制竞争协议的一个重要组成部分,自然被各国反垄断立法所关注。本文就纵向限制竞争协议进行剖析研究,分析了纵向限制竞争协议的概念及构成要件,介绍了国外的相关立法,引出我国在这方面的立法存在的缺陷,最后提出了些许相关的建议。     

离职竞业限制协议的效力问题探讨——兼论商业秘密法律保护手段选择

竞业限制关系中蕴含着由多元利益所构成的复杂利益结构,对竞业限制协议的效力,应当在利益衡量中谨慎地认定。其中的关键点是将经济补偿的约定和支付作为离职竞业限制协议的有效要件和生效要件之一,并将无经济补偿的离职竞业限制协议认定为无效。竞业限制本质上是对竞争关系的调整,《反不正当竞争法》对侵害商业秘密行为的规制,其效果优于《劳动法》所确立的竞业限制制度。实践中,应进一步强化反不正当竞争法的商业秘密保护功能。     

纵向限制评判标准之限制经销商自由说驳论

反垄断法以保护自由竞争为立法目的,以竞争损害为垄断行为构成要件。因此,判断垄断行为的评判标准应该是相关行为是否损害竞争。我国反垄断实践中,各方在论证或认定RPM等纵向限制违法时,高度强调此类行为限制经销商自由。这一标准与缔约自由的民法基本制度相冲突,无法解释众多现有反垄断实践,导致反垄断法内部逻辑混乱,因此不符合良好理论的评价标准。限制经销商自由与真正的竞争损害并不存在密切对应关系,反而存在明显冲突,因此亦不能以限制经销商自由作为竞争损害的替代指标。我国反垄断执法的理性化要求放弃这一标准,明确转向竞争损害标准。     

青苗补偿费的归属问题探讨

土地承包合同期间青苗补偿费应归属于青苗所有人即土地承包人。青苗补偿费不以实际损害为要件。制定格式条款的一方限制或排除对方权利的条款应当无效。     

经济治理“过度反垄断”的法理反思

反垄断法遵循着为自由而干预自由的法哲学基础,不单向保护竞争者的消极自由或者限制垄断者的积极自由,这从根本上划定了反垄断法的基本限度。“过度反垄断”是我国当前经济治理中出现的阶段性问题,是反垄断立法和执法活动不遵守反垄断法与其他法律或社会规范的外部界限,超出反垄断法的内部制度预设,最终导致政府过度干预市场经济的结果。其反映为立法层面的价值目标象征化、法益保护前置化、兜底条款扩张化、并购审查扩大化、平台条款广泛化、罚则配置严厉化,以及执法层面竞争效果评估的形式化。“过度反垄断”将改变政府权力与市场自由的结构,阻碍创新和经济增长,导致反垄断法与其他规范体系的龃龉。防止经济治理“过度反垄断”,必须确立反垄断法参与经济治理最小化的整体理念,通过比例原则对反垄断法益予以实质性限缩,实现外部法律体系对反垄断法的约束,同时从内部实体制度层面强化市场力量标准与竞争效果分析。     

搭售的反垄断分析

搭售是现代企业营销的重要策略之一,因其效力涉及反垄断法中限制竞争协议和市场优势地位滥用两大领域,往往成为各国反垄断法规制的重点。由于很多情况下搭售的存在有其合理性一面,因此规制的标准在理论和司法实务上争议很多。本文分析了搭售行为的内涵和构成要件,并从经济学和法学的角度对其反竞争效果和经济生活中的价值进行了分析,并在此基础上对搭售的违法确认准则作出了进一步的思考,从而为在《反垄断法》中规制搭售行为找到一个相对合理的平衡点提供依据,并从我国的现实出发提出了有关立法建议,以期对我国反垄断理论的研究和实践有所裨益。     

Protection against Unfair Contracts: An Economic Analysis of European Regulation

After considering the possible outcomes that may result from the interaction between potential contract parties, this paper discusses potential causes of inefficiency and investigates how the law affects conditions that would give rise to inefficiency. The analysis is focussed on the European regulation of standard form contracts. This regulation implies that unfair terms in standard form contracts are unenforceable in Member States of the European Community, and can be interpreted as a measure to curtail the adverse selection problem that originates in the fact that contract parties may use standard form contracts. This paper investigates the welfare implication of this protection against unfair contracts.     

民事合同与商事合同之辨

民事合同与商事合同在当事人认定、交易结构的繁简、"名""实"相副与否、"穿透"合同关系的允许与禁止、合同瑕疵的容忍抑或矫正、商业逻辑的地位及作用、坚守"正位"抑或"错位"处理"火候"把握等方面存在差异.认识、重视和研讨之,目的 和意义之一是,在法律适用时必须顾及商事合同的特殊性,不得僵硬地套用关于民事合同的规定.目的 ...     

侵犯优先购买权的股权转让合同“有效说”之反思

《公司法司法解释(四)》实施后,侵犯优先购买权的股权转让合同“有效”,成为主导性裁判倾向.然而,股权受让人的主要合同预期是尽快继受股权或在发现目标公司合作氛围不睦时可单方撤销合同而非获得违约赔偿,因此合同有效状态下的违约责任比其他状态下的缔约过失责任更能保护受让人的观点其实偏离了受让人的主要合同预期.“鼓励交易原则”的...     

When anti-corruption norms lead to undesirable results: learning from the Indonesian experience

This paper analyzes how and why adverse side-effects have occurred in the implementation of two articles of Indonesia’s anti-corruption law. These articles prohibit unlawful acts which may be detrimental to the finances of the state. Indeed, the lawmakers had good intentions when they drafted the two articles. They wanted to make it easier to convict corrupt individuals by lowering the standard of evidence required to prove criminal liability. The implementation of these articles has raised legal uncertainty. The loose definition of the elements of the crime enables negligence and imperfection of (public) contracts to be considered as corruption. The Constitutional Court has issued two rulings to restrict and guide the interpretation of these articles. However, law enforcement agencies (Supreme Court and public prosecutors) have been unwilling to adhere to the rulings. There are two possible reasons for this. First, as has been argued by several commentators, the law enforcement agencies have misinterpreted the concept of “unlawfulness”. Besides, the law enforcement agencies wish to be seen to be committed to prosecuting and delivering convictions in corruption cases. To do so, they need to maintain looser definitions of the elements of the offence. This paper endorses the Constitutional Court rulings and provides additional reasons in support of their stance. The paper can be considered as a case study for other countries that may be contemplating similar legislation.     

经济法学科学化的法教义学路径

科学化是经济法学科发展的关键。法教义学呈现了法律科学的逻辑性、体系性和可验证性的基本要素,为经济法学的科学化提供了体系化的可能路径。根据法教义学"价值-规范-事实"的研究框架,在价值层面,经济法的社会功能是一种社会对国家经济治理权的想象和期待,旨在以正当、合理的经济介入方式维持和恢复经济系统的良序运行,经济介入的积极形式是培育市场功能条件,消极形式是对经济系统自主运行失序状态的纠正。在规范层面,经济法律规范体系可分解为四组经济法教义学的"理想类型",从而构建起由社会功能、公正优先和法律义务三个要素组成的法律命题体系。在事实层面,经济法应实现立法的体系化与司法的操作化,达成法教义与法治实践的良性互动。     

Standard Form Contracts as Transnational Law: Evidence from the Derivatives Markets

This paper uses new research into the derivatives markets to develop our understanding of standard form contracts as transnational law and to show how transnational law theory may be usefully informed by empirical work. Traditionally, it has been assumed that international business communities seek to avoid the courts. However, the paper shows that the national courts play a prominent role in adjudicating disputes involving derivatives. Basing the discussion on the detail of these decisions by the English courts, the paper demonstrates that adjudication does not necessarily undermine widely used standard form contracts, and that it may even reinforce practices that underpin them. This is particularly the case where there is imperfect co‐incidence between a trade association's members and a standard form contract's users. Having explored recent cases, the paper reconciles its findings with a more open and imaginative account of the role of national courts within transnational law theory.     

Gardner on Legal Reasoning

In Chapters 2, 3 and 7 of his new book, Law as a Leap of Faith, John Gardner provides the elements of an account of legal reasoning. It is on the basis of this account that Gardner defends or supports some of the most important theses of his book, viz. theses pertaining to how law can be made, to the relation between law and morality, and to the legitimacy of judicial law-making. A central element of Gardner’s account is a distinction (suggested originally by Joseph Raz) between two forms of legal reasoning, namely, reasoning about the law and reasoning according to law. In this paper I intend to describe and evaluate Gardner’s account. Among the critical remarks that will appear in the paper is the claim that Gardner’s concept of reasoning according to law is overly inclusive.     

从法律适用条款看冲突法对国际格式合同的规制

国际格式合同分为国际示范合同和国际附和合同。随着各国对外民商事交往的发展 ,国际格式合同使用得越来越频繁。尤其是世界贸易组织的建立 ,服务贸易的迅猛发展 ,更是为国际格式合同的使用搭建了广阔平台。分析国际格式合同的法律适用条款 ,旨在冲突法方面规制格式合同 ,保护当事人的合法权益     

国际民商事合同中的默示选法问题研究

在国际民商事合同的法律适用问题上,尊重当事人默示选法的意图,得到国内法与国际条约层面的广泛接受。但当事人默示选法在理论上还存在诸多争论。当事人的默示选法应当是对当事人业已存在的默示选法意图之认定,而不是对其选法意图的推定或假设,而且,当事人的默示选法在本质上是明示选法的一种特殊形式。在实践中,据以确定默示选法的因素包括仲裁(法院)选择条款、相关交易中的法律选择条款、在合同中"提及"或"并入"某国法律以及标准格式合同等。在认定当事人的默示选法时,应将上述指示因素以及合同和案件的整体情况综合起来一并考量。现有条约和国内法实践表明,对于默示选法的证明要求问题,各国尚未形成一致做法。我们应该在承认当事人默示选法的前提下,一方面要严格默示选法的证明要求,另一方面要进一步明确默示选法实施过程中应注意的相关难题。     

A Toolbox for European Judges

The forthcoming instrument on European contract law, be it in the shape of an optional code for cross‐border contracts or as an official toolbox for the European legislator, is likely to have a spill‐over effect on private law adjudication in Europe. Judges will have no great difficulty in finding model rules and definitions that might come in handy when dealing with gaps and ambiguities in European private law. However, the question is whether such a role as a toolbox for judges would be legitimate. I discuss three types of possible legitimation strategies: traditional methods of legal interpretation, the new European methods and merely political legitimation. It will often depend on the circumstances of the case at hand and the characteristics of the particular model rule or definition that is being borrowed what mode of legitimation will prove to be more convincing. However, generally speaking legitimation in terms of the ‘general principles of civil law’ that the CJEU has recently been developing seems a particularly promising strategy. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that European courts could come under a duty, following from the principle of sincere cooperation, to use the instrument as a toolbox.