法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
從行政法院判決看適用公平交易法第 25 條之共通原則與問題(General Principles and Basic Issues on the Application of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act from the Perspectives of the Administrative Court’s Judgements)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 吳秀明
出版日期: 2021.07
刊登出處: 台灣/公平交易季刊第 29 卷 第 3 期/65-118 頁
頁  數: 42 點閱次數: 1061
下載點數: 168 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 吳秀明
關 鍵 詞: 欺罔顯失公平足以影響交易秩序限制競爭不公平競爭消費者保護概括條款補充原則
中文摘要: 公平交易法第 25 條是該法之概括條款,功能在於補充個別規定,作為該法維護市場競爭秩序最後一道之防線。本條之處分案件數居公平法各類行為之第二位,實務上十分重要。惟本條之要件多為不確定法律概念,致使其解釋適用一直存在諸多疑問。另一方面本條在施行近 30 年後已有超過 1,000 件之處分,行政法院亦著有超過250件之判決。數十年累積的實務與裁判蘊含無數寶貴之內容,豐富了概括條款原本空洞的架構,賦予本條厚實的法律生命,誠值得深入探討。
有鑒於此本文乃從總論之角度,探討公平法第 25 條之解釋適用所遭遇之共通問題,特別聚焦於行政法院近 30 年之裁判,惟亦輔以學說及公平交易委員會之實務。本文論述之重點,首先將說明公平法第 25 條在實務上之地位與重要性,接著逐一探討公平法第 25 條之五大基礎共通原則問題,分別是:一、公平法第 25 條之補充適用範圍;二、處理公平法第 25 條與個別規定間適用關係之「窮盡規範原則」(補充原則);三、介入管制之門檻-「足以影響交易秩序」;四、「欺罔」與「顯失公平」之解釋;五、公平法第 25 條案例類型之體系建構等。期盼透過本研究,能進一步闡明辨析本條之理論基礎與實務內涵。
英文關鍵詞: DeceptiveObviously UnfairAble to Affect Trading OrderRestraints of CompetitionUnfair CompetitionConsumer ProtectionGeneral ClausePrinciple of Supplementariness
英文摘要: This study focuses on actual cases involving Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act. The scope of the study includes administrative court judgments; cases that are of practical and theoretical importance are critiqued and analyzed using theoretical principles or considered from the perspective of comparative law. This study discusses various issues regarding the application of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act from the perspective of its general provisions. The application of the general provisions can be divided into the following five sections.
First, regarding the scope of the supplementary application of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act, this study has found that most administrative courts have ruled that the scope of Article 25 is not only limited to unfair competition, but also encompasses the realms of restraints of competition and consumer protection. However, a prerequisite to the application of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act is that the element of being “able to affect trading order” must be satisfied first.
Second, apart from receiving wide support in the academic community, the principle of “supplementariness” had been adopted by the Fair Trade Commission for almost 20 years. The majority of the administrative court judgments that have expressed an opinion in this regard have also supported this theory. There are still a few cases, however, that have neglected the application of this principle, while those that have expounded on it are relatively few. It is hoped that there can be further developments in the future.
Third, regarding the threshold of intervention “whether the conduct is able to affect trading order,” this element can distinguish this provision from the other laws (especially civil laws and the Consumer Protection Act), which helps to determine the scope of this provision. This study found that there is a plethora of interpretations on this element by the administrative court. The discourses on the determinant factors of “affecting trading order” are also diverse. However, the administrative court has not clearly expressed its opinion as to the extent to which conduct of a different nature must affect trading in order to constitute this element.
Fourth, regarding the applicability of the elements, “deceptive” and “obviously unfair,” this study found that the judgments of the administrative court often cite the standards in the Guidelines of the Fair Trade Commission as the basis for their determination. However, in actual practice, there are still areas that can be improved, which are also identified in this study.
Fifth, the clarification of the legal structure of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act cases is a means to curb the legal uncertainty of the general clause. The Fair Trade Commission categorized the classification of conduct based on the elements of “deceptive” and “obviously unfair” within the provision. Such classifications are also incorporated into the guidelines. The administrative court basically follows the same classifications. This study also generally agrees with the classification by the Fair Trade Commission. However, a few recommendations for the adoption of new categories as well as the revision of the existing classification have been made.
目  次: 一、前言
二、公平法第 25 條之實務地位與重要性
 (一)第 25 條之處分案件數及占歷年總處分案件數之百分比與排名
 (二)第 25 條案件被撤銷之案件數、百分比與排名
三、公平法第 25 條之補充適用範圍
 (一)學說見解
 (二)公平會之立場
 (三)行政法院之見解
 (四)評析與小結
四、公平法第 25 條與本法其他個別規定之適用關係-窮盡規範原則(補充原則)
 (一)「窮盡規範原則」在學說上之意義及公平會之採納落實
 (二)行政法院對於窮盡規範原則之見解
 (三)小結
五、介入管制之門檻-足以影響交易秩序
 (一)學說見解
 (二)公平會對於「足以影響交易秩序」之解釋
 (三)行政法院對於「足以影響交易秩序」之見解
 (四)「足以影響交易秩序」與本法第 26 條「危害公共利益之情事」之關係
六、「欺罔」與「顯失公平」要件之意涵
 (一)判斷顯失公平之標準與「效能競爭原則」
 (二)「欺罔」與「顯失公平」之區別適用問題
七、公平法第 25 條案例類型之體系建構
 (一)學說與實務上對於公平法第 25 條案例類型結構之意見
 (二)本文對於本法第 25 條案例類型之基本看法
八、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
吳秀明,從行政法院判決看適用公平交易法第 25 條之共通原則與問題,公平交易季刊,第 29 卷 第 3 期,65-118 頁,2021年07月。
返回功能列