我国限制转售价格制度的体系化解释及其完善

发布时间：2018-02-14 23:18

本文关键词： 限制转售价格合理规则核心限制豁免制度　出处：《华东政法大学学报》2015年04期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：对于限制转售价格的反垄断法规制,国家发改委在眼镜企业案(2014)中对企业自主定价权的关注再一次凸显了与强生案(2013)中法院分析思路的不同。司法机关和执法机关两种不同进路反映了美国和欧盟经验对我国《反垄断法》制定和实施的双重影响和异向导引。美欧模式存在体系化差异,制度背后的价值判断、事实假定和术语体系都不同。在理解上述差异的基础上,我国《反垄断法》第14、15条应解释为对限制转售价格推定违法并允许豁免抗辩。同时,我国应尽快出台相关实施细则、指南等文件对此做进一步的细化和完善。宏观上,应注意本国制度体系的一致性及特殊性、进一步明确价值目标和事实假定并充分考量实施成本;微观上,应以更多实证证据为支撑,在继续保持违法推定的同时,借鉴显著性标准和安全港制度,适度收窄禁止范围。
[Abstract]:As to the regulation of anti-monopoly law to limit resale price, The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) in the spectacles Enterprise case (2014) once again highlights the difference in the thinking of court analysis between the case of Johnson and the case of Johnson (2014.The two different approaches of the judiciary and the law enforcement agencies reflect the economic situation of the United States and the European Union. The double influence and different direction guide to the formulation and implementation of the Anti-monopoly Law in China. There are systematic differences in the American and European models. On the basis of understanding the above differences, Article 1415 of China's Anti-Monopoly Law should be interpreted as the presumption of violation of the restriction on resale prices and the granting of immunity defences. China should issue the relevant implementation rules as soon as possible. The guidelines and other documents should further refine and improve this. Macroscopically, we should pay attention to the consistency and particularity of our own system. At the same time, we should continue to maintain the presumption of illegality, draw lessons from the standard of significance and the system of safe harbour, and appropriately narrow the scope of prohibition.
【作者单位】：南京大学法学院;安徽财经大学;
【基金】：江苏省2014年度普通高校研究生科研创新计划“强化反垄断法公共实施机制研究”(项目号KYLX_0009)的阶段性研究成果
【分类号】：D922.294

【参考文献】