反垄断法违法行为的私法效力判定

发布时间：2018-10-10 07:38

【摘要】：审理反垄断案件时，违反反垄断法行为的私法效力判断是个不可回避的问题，但是我国《反垄断法》对此并没有作出明确的规定，因此只能借助于《民法通则》、《合同法》及其司法解释来作为适用的依据和判断的准则。于是，民法中的强制规范成为了连接反垄断法与私法的管道，具有使反垄断法进入私法领域的功能。然而民法的强制规范并非徒有其表的法律条文，认定反垄断法违法行为的私法效力也非援引民法规定就能得出结论的简单问题。透过民法体系思维判断违反反垄断法行为的私法效力，必然涉及两个不同思维的法体系如何相互支援、相互协作的问题。申言之，认定反垄断违法行为时既要注意反垄断法的特质，如违法行为的违法程度、反垄断法规范该行为的目的、市场客观环境、交易安全及交易中第三人的利益等，也应注意不破坏民法既有的逻辑和体系思维。 本文以两则大相径庭的判决为楔子展开讨论，梳理出违反反垄断法行为私法效力认定中所面临的冲突与争议，进而考察国内外相关学说，在此基础上提炼出现有理论中违反反垄断法行为私法效力认定中所需考量的要素，即法律规范效力属性要素和公序良俗要素。在现有理论的深入梳理及分析后，本文尝试提出自己的理论主张，即“反垄断规范目的解释论”，此观点调和了民法中认定违法行为私法效力的现有理论与反垄断法的特性之间的矛盾，，以规范目的解释方法较好地解决了反垄断违法行为效力认定中出现的问题。文章的最后是这一理论的具体展开，即以此理论分析了我国反垄断法的三大实体内容，并对文章开头提到的垄断协议案件做了回应。 除引言和结论外，论文包括以下五部分内容。 第一部为“违反反垄断法行为私法效力的冲突与争议”，通过我国台湾地区“高等法院第九十一年度上更字第一00号民事判决”与“高等法院高雄分院九十一年度上易字第五0号民事判决”两份判决的比对，引发违反反垄断法行为私法判断的问题。 第二部为“违反反垄断法行为私法效力判定的主要学说”，整理和分析国内外现有相关学说，以此辨章学术、考镜源流、解释逻辑、评判得失、发掘沉淀、前瞻未来，使得反垄断法私法效力判定能够建立在既有底蕴厚重源远流长的私法逻辑和体系思维之上。 第三部为“违反反垄断法行为私法效力评判要素辨析”，在第二部分的基础之上进一步整理违反反垄断法行为私法效力评判要素，抽象出传统理论中“法律规范效力属性要素”、“公序良俗要素”两个分析维度。 第四部为“违反反垄断法行为私法效力评判框架重构”，在现有理论的梳理及分析后，本文尝试提出自己的理论主张和评判框架，以此调和民法中认定违法行为私法效力的现有理论与顾虑反垄断法的特性的矛盾，以规范目的解释方法较好地解决了反垄断违法行为效力认定中出现的问题。 第五部分为“违反反垄断法行为私法效力的具体认定”，此部分为反垄断规范目的解释论在反垄断法实体法中具体展开，通过类型化的分析，得出反垄断法三大实体内容在私法认定问题的初步结论。
[Abstract]:In case of anti-monopoly case, it is an unavoidable problem to judge the validity of private law against the behavior of anti-monopoly law, but our country's" anti-monopoly law "does not make clear regulation, so it can only be adopted by the General Principles of People's Law>, and its judicial interpretation as applicable basis and judgment criteria. Therefore, the compulsory norms in civil law have become the pipeline linking anti-monopoly law and private law, which has the function of bringing anti-monopoly law into private law. However, the compulsory norms of civil law are not the legal provisions of the law, but the validity of the private law of the illegal act of the anti-monopoly law does not invoke the simple question which can be concluded in the civil law. To judge the effectiveness of private law in violation of anti-monopoly law through the thinking of civil law system, it is necessary to deal with the mutual support and cooperation of two different ways of thinking. In the case of anti-monopoly act, it is necessary to pay attention to the characteristics of the anti-monopoly law, such as the illegal degree of the illegal act, the purpose of the regulation of the anti-monopoly law, the objective environment of the market, the security of the transaction and the interests of the third party in the transaction, etc. Attention should also be paid to not destroying both the logic and the system thinking of the civil law. This paper discusses the conflict and the dispute in the determination of the validity of the private law of the anti-monopoly law, and then inspects the relevant domestic and foreign affairs. On the basis of this theory, there are some elements necessary to be considered in the determination of the validity of the private law of anti-monopoly law, that is, the effective attribute of legal norms and the public order. The article tries to put forward its own theory after thorough analysis and analysis of the existing theory. Zhang, namely" Anti-monopoly normative purpose solution "On the basis of this view, the contradiction between the existing theory and the characteristics of the anti-monopoly law is reconciled in the civil law, and the interpretation method of the normative purpose is better solved in the determination of the validity of the anti-monopoly law. The last part of the article is the concrete development of this theory, that is, this theory analyzes the contents of the three big entities of our country's anti-monopoly law, and did it to the monopoly agreement cases mentioned in the beginning of the article. Response. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the paper includes the following Within five parts Volume 1: Private Law in violation of Anti-monopoly Law Conflict and Dispute of Effectiveness in that Taiwan area of Taiwan, the first 0 in the ninth year of the high court  0鍙锋皯浜嬪垽鍐斥

本文编号：2261191

qikan