法學論著
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
論「相對市場優勢地位」於公平交易法之適用(Applying the “Relative Market Advantageous Position” under the Fair Trade Law)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 魏杏芳
出版日期: 2018.09
出 版 社: 台灣 劉鐵錚大法官八秩華誕祝壽論文集編輯委員會
I S B N: 9789869562416
集叢名稱: 台灣 新時代法學理論之建構與開創-劉鐵錚大法官八秩華誕祝壽論文集
頁  數: 51 點閱次數: 151
下載點數: 204 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 魏杏芳
關 鍵 詞: 優勢議約地位相對市場優勢地位國際競爭網絡單方行為濫用後市場
中文摘要: 所謂「優勢議約地位」或「相對市場優勢地位」,意指因他事業的經濟依賴,使實際上不具有市場支配力的事業,因此被視為具有市場上的相對優勢地位。由於事業欠缺支配地位,一旦有濫用情事,礙難以禁止單方行為濫用相關規定來處理。各國競爭法執行實務都重視此議題,但由於政經環境與反托拉斯法政策的不同,各國的作法大異其趣。日本與德國雖然都在競爭法裡為此定有特定的條文,但日本基於政策考量,著重在保護較弱勢的交易相對人,實與獨占濫用禁止的概念無關。德國則以交易相對人為中小企業為限,將禁止濫用支配力的規定,也適用在享有相對市場力的事業,但這只是適用主體的擴張,至於其他與限制市場競爭有關的考量因素,則與一般禁止獨占濫用的案件相同。英美競爭法制的思考則認為反托拉斯法的執行不應考慮個別事業的經濟依賴問題。公平會實務上對於事業濫用「相對市場優勢地位」案件的處理,主要以「第二十五條處理原則」為依據,都屬於不公平競爭類型案件,並不以事業有市場力及限制競爭效果為必要,此可由公平會對「國際競爭網絡」調查的回復獲得確認。倘政策上有強化或補充弱勢交易相對人議約地位,而有將「相對市場優勢地位」概念入法的必要,基於法律明確性與法治國原則,應於公平法不公平競爭章中另立與「相對市場優勢地位」相關的條文,並以授權立法方式,將目前各相關處理原則提升為「法規命令」為妥。至於屬限制競爭的違法類型,則無公開使用「相對市場優勢地位」這個名詞的必要,建議參採歐盟的執法實踐,於個案執行的市場界定與判斷市場力階段,即綜合考量包括「相對市場優勢地位」在內的多項因素,並運用的解釋方法,將交易雙方的相對關係,納入案件的競爭分析過程中,使「相對市場優勢地位」實質上發揮作用,同時保持限制競爭案件與競爭法固有的本質。
英文關鍵詞: Superior Bargaining PositionRelative Market Advantageous PositionInternational Competition Network (ICN)Unilateral Abusive ConductAftermarket
英文摘要: The International Competition Network (ICN) has referred to an enterprise without dominance on the relevant market as an enterprise with “superior bargaining position” (SBP) when other enterprises are economically dependent on it and makes it relatively advantageous vis-à-vis its trading counterparts. Taiwan’s Fair Trade Commission usually uses the term “relative market advantageous position” (RMAP) identifying those companies with this specific feature. The provisions relating the prohibition of abusive unilateral conducts are generally incompatible with the situation when an enterprise abuses its SBP since that company actually does not enjoy a dominant power on the market. Competition authorities around the world have discerned the problem and have dealt with it in different patterns coping with their own country’s political and economic circumstances as well as the anti-trust enforcement policy. Even Japan and Germany had included respectively specific articles governing the abuses of SBP in their own competition laws, those clauses are based on non-competition law - related rationales. In Japan, those articles had been purposefully enacted for the protection of relatively weaker trading counterparts within specific transaction relations, nothing to do with the principles of prohibiting the abuse of monopoly. As to the enactment in Germany, the application of those clauses for the prohibition of abusive relative market power are limited to the situation when the trading partners are small-and-medium sized enterprises; i.e., only expanding the scope of the subject under scrutiny but without altering the framework of analyses for competition cases. The United Kingdom and the United States take the similar stances that anti-trust law enforcement should not take into account the individual enterprise’s economic dependence. Under the European competition law, the mere fact of certain enterprise’s economic dependence and the SBP factor will not be considered individually but rather to be integrated or crafted into the analyses of market definition and market power assessment. In its two-decade enforcement history, the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (TFTC), based on the “Guidelines on the Enforcement of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Law”, has classified the cases concerning abuses of RMAP under the category of unfair competition cases, rather than the ones with the nature of restricting competition. The author believes that the current enforcement pattern over the RMAP cases can be maintained; however, with the view of the principles of clarity and definiteness of laws and rule of law, it is highly recommended to directly enact the concept of RMAP by law. With regard to the intent of expanding the RMAP concept into the area of restrictive competition, the TFTC should act prudently when taking into consideration the intrinsic nature of restrictive competition cases and the current completion law system as a whole. The EU competition law-enforcement practices have shown how to utilize the tools of analyses for market definition and market power assessment, and the author strongly suggests that the EU competition law enforcement model is of value reference for TFTC.
目  次: 壹、前言-問題的提出
貳、各國法制處理「相對市場優勢地位」的作法
參、適用競爭法處理濫用「優勢議約地位」的歐盟經驗
肆、「相對市場優勢地位」於我國公平法之適用
伍、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
魏杏芳,論「相對市場優勢地位」於公平交易法之適用,新時代法學理論之建構與開創-劉鐵錚大法官八秩華誕祝壽論文集,劉鐵錚大法官八秩華誕祝壽論文集編輯委員會,2018年09月。
返回功能列