转售价格维持案件违法性判定标准的立法史解释

理论界存在一种流行的观点认为《反垄断法》预判了转售价格维持(RPM)本身违法。此观点不成立。《反垄断法》调整对象高度复杂,条文高度抽象,法律解释是其适用的前提,解释工作的重点是查明立法者意图。该法条文本身并未清晰规定RPM不需要在个案中证明存在竞争损害。我国市场经济实践历史短,反垄断立法过程中对RPM的研究和调研不足,立法者对垄断行为的认识并不清晰。这说明立法者对市场规律的把握不足以判断RPM本身违法。立法释义明确拒绝就分析模式作出预判,且高度倾向于对RPM采用合理原则。

A Legislative Historical Interpretation of the Test for RPM in China's Antimonopoly Law

A popular view believes that China’s Antimonopoly Law(AML)prejudges that RPM is illegal per se.This view does not hold.Subject matters of AML are highly complex,and its provisions are very abstract;therefore,its application necessitates interpretation,which focuses on identifying intentions of the legislator.Text of AML does not unambiguously provide that RPM does not require proof of competitive harm in individual cases.China only has short experience of the market economy system,there was inadequate research and survey on RPM during AML legislation,and the legislator had some incorrect views on antimonopoly conducts.These facts indicate that the legislator had inadequate cognizance of the market’s laws for it to accurately prejudge RPM illegal per se.The legislator’s Explanatory Notes for AML explicitly refuse to make prejudgment on analysis modes for monopolistic agreements,and actually heavily bend to apply the rule of reason to RPM.