论纵向价格垄断协议的法律规制

发布时间：2018-01-24 05:01

本文关键词： 贵州茅台宜宾五粮液纵向价格垄断协议限定最低转售价格　出处：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：2013年2月，，贵州省茅台酒销售有限公司（以下简称“贵州茅台”）和宜宾五粮液酒类销售有限责任公司（以下简称“宜宾五粮液”）因实施限定最低转售价格行为，被国家发改委处以合计4.49亿元人民币的反垄断罚款，堪称我国反垄断史上的“天价罚单”。该事件在全国造成了很大的影响，对于实施5年的《反垄断法》具有破冰性的历史意义。虽然贵州茅台和宜宾五粮液的违法行为已被遏止，但其中涉及的法律问题仍然值得我们深入探讨。本文在介绍此事件的基础上，从法学角度对这一事件进行分析，并提出相关的对策建议，期望有助于此类事件的良好解决。本文分为三个部分：第一部分介绍了贵州茅台、宜宾五粮液被处罚事件始末。2012年以来，贵州茅台、宜宾五粮液不仅先后对经销商发出“限价令”，还对违反“限价令”的经销商开出“罚单”、“通报文件”，作出诸如暂停执行合同计划、扣减20%保证金、黄牌警告等“处罚”，该行为由于严重扰乱市场秩序，被发改委于2013年2月制止。第二部分涉及的是对贵州茅台、宜宾五粮液“限价”行为的认定。笔者认为：其一，贵州茅台、宜宾五粮液违反《反垄断法》第14条是其受罚的直接原因。对经销商限定最低转售价格的行为构成纵向价格垄断协议，排除和限制了市场竞争，损害了消费者的权益，影响了正常的市场秩序。其二，构成纵向价格协议是构成纵向价格垄断协议的前提。认定纵向价格协议应考虑“协议”的认定范畴、主体纵向具有行业一致性、客观上影响市场价格的正常波动等三方面的因素。其三，纵向价格垄断协议违法性的判定标准。应综合四个方面的因素：相关市场的竞争强度；相关企业的市场地位；纵向价格垄断协议产生的竞争效果；对消费者权益造成的影响。第三部分结合本案提出规制纵向垄断协议的相关建议。基于第二部分的法律分析，相应地提出有助于此类事件良好解决的建议。其一，立法层面：从法条出发。扩充纵向价格垄断协议的范畴；明确纵向价格垄断协议的判定标准和法律责任。其二，执法层面：从主体设置、程序正义入手。设置统一、权威的反垄断执法机构；强化反垄断执法程序正义。其三，司法层面：从完善诉讼程序做起。
[Abstract]:In February 2013 , Guizhou Moutai Liquor Sales Co . , Ltd . ( hereinafter referred to as " Guibin Wuliangye " ) and Yibin Wuliangye Liquor Sales Co . , Ltd . ( hereinafter referred to as " Yibin Wuliangye " ) were fined a total of RMB 4.49 billion yuan by the National Development and Reform Commission ( hereinafter referred to as " Yibin Wuliangye " ) . Based on the introduction of the incident , this article analyzes the incident from the angle of law , and puts forward relevant countermeasures and suggestions . It is expected to help the good solution of such events . The article is divided into three parts : In the first part , Mao tai and Yibin Wuliangye of Guizhou Province were introduced . Since 2012 , Wuliangye of Guizhou has not only issued a " price limit order " to the dealer , but also issued a " penalty " to the dealer who violates the " price limit order " . It also makes a " punishment " such as suspension of the contract plan , deduction of 20 % margin , yellow - brand warning , etc . , which is due to the serious disruption of the market order , which was stopped by the Development and Reform Commission in February 2013 . The second part deals with the determination of the " price limit " behavior of Mao tai and Yibin Wuliangye in Guizhou . The author holds that the article 14 is the direct cause of the penalty . The third part puts forward the suggestion of regulating the longitudinal monopoly agreement according to the present case . Based on the second part of the law analysis , the author puts forward some suggestions for the good solution of such events . First , the legislative level : from the law bar , expand the scope of the vertical price monopoly agreement , clear the decision criterion and legal responsibility of the vertical price monopoly agreement .

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.294

【参考文献】