法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
論合意證明的溝通證據-由預拌混凝土處分案談起(Proving the Existence of an Agreement and Communication Evidence-Reviewing the TFTC’s Decision on the Pre-mixed Concrete Case)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 魏杏芳
出版日期: 2021.04
刊登出處: 台灣/公平交易季刊第 29 卷 第 2 期/109-148 頁
頁  數: 34 點閱次數: 850
下載點數: 136 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 魏杏芳
關 鍵 詞: 默示共謀其他方式合意意思聯絡情況證據溝通證據經濟證據
中文摘要: 本文以公平會處分 5 家預拌混凝土事業聯合漲價案出發,探討溝通證據在合意證明上的重要性。溝通證據為情況證據的一種,係指得證明參與事業曾見面或以其他方式溝通,但未能描述溝通的實質內容者。溝通證據要能直接證明涉案事業確實曾有接觸或溝通的機會。美國與歐盟都允許採用情況證據來推論合意的存在,並賦予溝通證據較高的證據價值。公平法第 14 條第 2 項的「意思聯絡」,解釋上應包含當事人間曾溝通接觸的客觀行為要素,並應以溝通證據加以證明。依同法第 14 條第 3 項的立法技術,應係「合意得推定之」的規定,而不是「合意已推定」,故主管機關尚難直接援引該條項,導出推定合意的結論。即使第 14 條第 3 項意在減輕公平會舉證責任的負擔,但實質也同時提高被處分事業合理說明的空間;臺北高等行政法院對預拌混凝土案的判決,撤銷公平會的原處分,正反映了此一現象。過去公平會及法院並未在決定中特別考慮或凸顯溝通證據,故溝通證據在合意推定的作用如何,實務見解並不明確。溝通證據亦是數位經濟時代影響執法正確性的重要因素。美國 Spencer Meyer v. Uber Technologies Inc.案的仲裁判斷,認為 Uber 與其駕駛之間,並未形成所謂「軸輻式共謀」,理由就在於欠缺溝通證據,難以證明為數甚夥的駕駛人曾經見面、溝通,故水平共謀不成立。無論在傳統產業或在科技領域,就聯合行為的查處,溝通證據均有其重要性。公平會宜建立明確的溝通證據意識,在個案調查與論述中重視溝通證據的建構,有助於提升法院對公平會合意推定的認同。
英文關鍵詞: Tacit CollusionOther Forms of AgreementInteraction of WillingnessCircumstantial EvidenceCommunication EvidenceEconomic Evidence
英文摘要: By reviewing the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission’s (TFTC) decision on the five pre-mixed concrete operators’ collusive behavior, this paper focuses on analyzing the values and necessity of communication evidence for the establishment of collusion. Being classified as one type of circumstantial evidence, communication evidence is that which can prove that the accused operators met or otherwise communicated, but does not describe the substance of their communication. After reviewing the competition law enforcement practices in the U.S. and the EU, it is confirmed that circumstantial evidence can be used to infer the existence of an agreement, especially on the occasion of there being concerted practices where there is a lack of direct evidence. Among the categories of circumstantial evidence, communication evidence is credited with a higher probative value. In the 2015 amendment to Taiwan’s Fair Trade Act, paragraph 3 of Article 14 allows the competition agency to implement the presumption of an agreement, but this does not necessarily mean that an agreement has been presumed to exist by law under certain conditions. The TFTC did not provide any communication evidence in the pre-mix concrete case decision to consolidate the inference that the accused companies had made contact or communicated with each other previously. Even though paragraph 3 of Article 14 has the effect of leveling down the TFTC’s burden of proof on the existence of an agreement, it also broadens the room for the accused companies to justify their behavior. The subsequent revocation of the TFTC’s decision on the pre-mixed concrete case by the Taipei High Administrative Court actually supported this argument. However, up to the present time, the importance and priority of communication evidence has not yet been envisaged in Taiwan. The blooming of e-commerce highlights the importance of communication evidence in dealing with illegal collusion in the digital era. In the arbitration award related to the Spencer Meyer v. Uber Technologies Inc. case, the arbitrator rejected the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that Uber’s drivers were a diverse lot; they did not generally know each other’s names or identities and they had no contact with each other. A “hub-and-spoke” type of collusion could not be formed without a horizontal agreement between drivers. The credibility of communication evidence needs to be confirmed and should be emphasized for the establishment of collusion either in traditional industries or advanced technology sectors.
目  次: 一、問題的提出-預拌混凝土處分案中的合意推定
二、合意證明的情況證據與溝通證據
(一)「有意識平行行為」與「一致性行為」之辨
(二)情況證據中的溝通證據(communication evidence)
三、各國在合意證明上運用溝通證據的實踐
(一)舉證責任分配原則與情況證據的運用
(二)美國、歐盟暨我國實務案例與溝通證據
(三)評析
四、公平法第 14 條的再詮釋-預拌混凝土案合意證明的檢討
(一)「意思聯絡」等於「合意」?
(二)第 14 條第 2 項「意思聯絡」的再解釋
(三)第 14 條第 3 項「合意推定」規定的再思考
(四)對預拌混凝土案有關「合意推定」的評析
五、溝通證據與數位經濟時代查處聯合行為的關係
六、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
魏杏芳,論合意證明的溝通證據-由預拌混凝土處分案談起,公平交易季刊,第 29 卷 第 2 期,109-148 頁,2021年04月。
返回功能列