惠尔讯公司诉深圳市有害生物防治协会横向垄断协议纠纷案评析

发布时间：2018-04-17 02:23

本文选题：垄断协议 + 横向垄断协议　；参考：《湖南大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：横向垄断协议对竞争的损害具有直接性和严重性,故其成为各国反垄断法严厉的禁止的对象。惠尔讯公司诉深圳市有害生物防治协会横向垄断协议一案中的焦点在于横向垄断协议的认定、垄断协议违法性的认定以及垄断协议正当性的认定。我国《反垄断法》第13条明确列举了五种类型的横向垄断协议,同时以国务院反垄断执法机构认定的其他垄断协议作为兜底条款,但并未涉及具体的认定标准。对于横向垄断协议的认定,还需要回归垄断协议的基本概念,结合横向垄断协议的主体、形式以及排除限制竞争三个构成要件来进行判断。经过长期的理论制度发展和司法实践,确立了本身违法原则和合理性原则来对垄断协议的违法性进行确认。本身违法是指对某些严重限制竞争的垄断协议,不管它们的具体情况,一经存在,即被视为违法。合理性原则是指对某些垄断协议并不必然地视为违法,而是根据垄断协议的目的或效果是否排除、限制竞争来决定其是否违法的原则。但垄断协议并非一无是处,我国《反垄断法》采取的是“一般禁止,特殊豁免”的立法模式。当某一协议既符合垄断协议的构成要件,又符合反垄断法所规定的豁免情形,同时不会严重限制竞争并且有利于消费者,则该协议具有正当性,可适用豁免制度。在本案中,有害生物防治协会与其会员单位签订的《自律公约》满足主体、形式以及排除、限制竞争三个要件,构成横向垄断协议。在我国《反垄断法》并未对本身违法原则和合理原则以及两原则的适用范围作出明确规定的情况下,应当借鉴国外司法实践,参考学术界的主流观点对《自律公约》适用本身违法原则进行违法性的认定。并且,本案中的《自律公约》没有同时满足适用豁免制度的三个条件,是故其不具有正当性,无法得到豁免。
[Abstract]:The horizontal monopoly agreement has direct and serious damage to competition, so it becomes the object of strict prohibition in the anti-monopoly law of various countries.In the case of horizontal monopoly agreement of Shenzhen pest control association, the focus of the case lies in the confirmation of horizontal monopoly agreement, the recognition of illegality of monopoly agreement and the recognition of legitimacy of monopoly agreement.Article 13 of our country's Anti-Monopoly Law explicitly lists five types of horizontal monopoly agreements. At the same time, other monopoly agreements recognized by the State Council's anti-monopoly law enforcement agency are taken as the bottom clauses, but no specific criteria are involved.For the determination of horizontal monopoly agreement, it is also necessary to return to the basic concept of monopoly agreement, combining with the subject, form and elimination of competition restriction of the three constituent elements to judge the horizontal monopoly agreement.After a long period of theoretical and institutional development and judicial practice, the author established the principle of illegality and rationality to confirm the illegality of monopoly agreement.Violation of the law itself refers to monopoly agreements that severely restrict competition, regardless of their specific circumstances, once they exist, they are regarded as illegal.The principle of reasonableness refers to the principle that some monopoly agreements are not necessarily considered illegal, but are determined to be illegal according to whether the purpose or effect of monopoly agreements is excluded and whether competition is restricted.But the monopoly agreement is not without merit. Our country's Anti-monopoly Law adopts the legislative model of "general prohibition, special exemption".If a certain agreement not only accords with the constitution of monopoly agreement, but also with the exemption situation stipulated in antitrust law, and does not seriously restrict competition and is beneficial to consumers, then the agreement is legitimate and applicable to the exemption system.In this case, the self-discipline convention signed by the pest control association and its member units meets the main body, the form and the three elements of exclusion and restriction of competition, and constitutes a horizontal monopoly agreement.If the Anti-monopoly Law of our country has not clearly stipulated the principle of illegality, the principle of reasonableness and the scope of application of the two principles, we should draw lessons from the judicial practice of foreign countries.Referring to the mainstream view of the academic circles, this paper determines the illegality of the application of the self-discipline convention.Moreover, the Self-discipline Convention in this case does not meet the three conditions of applying the exemption system simultaneously, so it is not legitimate and can not be exempted.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.294;D920.5

【相似文献】