法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 相對優勢地位濫用規範的六大迷思(Six Myths about Regulation on Abuse of Relative Dominance)
編著譯者: 黃銘傑
出版日期: 2022.03
刊登出處: 台灣/國立臺灣大學法學論叢第 51 卷 第 1 期 /209-259 頁
頁  數: 50 點閱次數: 304
下載點數: 200 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 國立臺灣大學法律學院
關 鍵 詞: 公平交易法市場不法市場力行為不法相對市場優勢地位相對交易優勢地位相對優勢地位濫用垂直交易限制限制競爭之虞獨占地位
中文摘要: 本文從我國公平法學界及實務界針對相對優勢地位濫用規範,有使用相對市場優勢地位者、有稱之為相對交易優勢地位者之不同用語出發,呈現國內學界及實務界對其規範概念與內容的混淆,進而說明因此而發生之下列六項規範迷思,詳細闡述其迷思發生原因及未來可能的因應及解決之道:(1)不以市場力存在為前提之相對優勢地位濫用規範,可以作為限制競爭之補充規範;(2)我國公平法不存在相當於德國限制競爭防止法中補充獨占地位濫用規範之相對市場優勢地位濫用規範;(3)相對優勢地位濫用規範亦可適用於資訊不對稱或不完全所造成的資訊優勢地位問題;(4)在事業與終端消費者間之交易關係上,亦可適用相對優勢地位濫用規範;(5)相對優勢地位濫用之成立,以其「足以影響交易秩序」為前提;(6)相對優勢地位濫用規範是有別於獨占地位濫用規範的獨立存在-真的存在「相對市場優勢地位」嗎?本文認為,不僅在正確的市場界定認知下,是否尚有「相對市場優勢地位」存在之空間,不無疑問;且就我國現行獨占地位濫用規範尚包含寡占事業,而現行公平法第 20 條之獨占預防、補充規定,其規範門檻更低、適用對象範圍更廣的規範架構下,實無必要再引進相對市場優勢地位濫用規範。
英文關鍵詞: Fair Trade ActIllegal by EffectsMarket PowerIllegal by BehaviorRelative Market AdvantageRelative Trading AdvantageAbuse of Relative DominanceVertical Restraints of TradeLikelihood of Restraining CompetitionMonopolistic Positions
英文摘要: This article starts from the misuse of norms by Taiwan’s competition law academics and enforcers against relative dominant position. Some commentators use terms such as relative market advantages, others call it relative transaction advantages. While these two type of advantages imply totally different regulatory subjects, the term “relative dominant position” causes a lot of confusion. The confusion further causes six following normative myths: (1) Abuse of norms by relative superiority that does not presuppose the existence of market power can be used as a supplementary regulation for restrictive competition; (2) Fair trade act does not have a relative market advantage abuse regulation equivalent to the German law on the prevention of competition restriction; (3) the relative advantage abuse regulation can also be applied to information asymmetry or information incompleteness problems; (4) The relative dominance abuse norms can also be applied to the transaction relationship between businesses and end consumers; (5) The establishment of relative dominance abuse is presupposed on “likelihood to affect transaction order”; (6) The relative dominant position abuse criterion is an independent existence and different from the monopoly position abuse criterion. This article believes that not only under the correct understanding of market definition, there is still room to question the existence of “relative market dominance”. It is also doubtful that Taiwan needs relative market dominance norms under current Fair Trade Act’s regulatory framework.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、迷思一:不以市場力存在為前提之相對優勢地位濫用規範,可以作為限制競爭行為之補充規範
參、迷思二:我國公平交易法不存在相當於德國限制競爭防止法中補充獨占地位濫用規範之相對市場優勢地位濫用規範
肆、迷思三:相對優勢地位濫用規範亦可適用於資訊不對稱或不完全所造成的資訊優勢地位問題
伍、迷思四:在事業與終端消費者間之交易關係上,當然亦可適用相對優勢地位濫用規範
陸、迷思五:相對優勢地位濫用之成立,以其「足以影響交易秩序」為前提
柒、迷思六:相對優勢地位濫用規範是有別於獨占地位濫用規範的獨立存在-真的存在「相對市場優勢地位」嗎?
捌、迷思的結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列