限定最低转售价格行为的违法性认定研究

发布时间：2018-05-08 14:56

本文选题：限定最低转售价格行为 + 反垄断法　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：自2010年以来,我国企业实施的限定最低转售价格案件频发,且有逐年增多之势。“2010年瑞邦诉强生案”、“2013年茅台五粮液案”、“2013年依视路、博士伦等眼镜企业案”、“2014年一汽大众案”、“2014年的克莱斯勒案”等诸多案件凸显出我国反垄断法对限定最低转售价格行为规制的不足与缺陷,其核心问题在于限定最低转售价格行为的违法性认定。对于该问题,目前反垄断法理论并未形成一致的违法性认定规则,现有法律规定过于抽象笼统且欠缺内在逻辑统一性。本文正是立足于此,对限定最低转售价格行为的内涵和分类、违法性认定原则和路径进行了探讨。文章除了引言,主要由以下四部分构成:第一部分:限定最低转售价格行为违法性认定的法理探源。首先,对限定最低转售价格行为的内涵进行界定,在分析学界代表性观点的基础上,结合反垄断执法和司法实践中出现的新型限定最低转售价格行为,对其内涵予以科学界定;其次,对限定最低转售价格行为予以分类,依据实施机制的不同、交易方所处环节的不同和上游企业有无横向联合三个标准,将反垄断司法实践中大量出现、纷繁复杂的限定最低转售价格行为进行了分类,以便进一步分析和研究。第二部分:限定最低转售价格行为的违法性认定原则。在反垄断法中,认定某一行为是否违法,有两大原则:本身违法原则和合理原则。在确定限定最低转售价格行为的违法性认定原则时,除了衡量本身违法原则和合理原则的优缺点外,还应分析限定最低转售价格行为对竞争的双重效应,借鉴美国、欧盟等国家和地区的经验,结合我国反垄断法的实施状况,综合比较得出结论:限定最低转售价格行为的违法性认定应适用合理原则。第三部分:限定最低转售价格行为的违法性认定路径。首先,分析了我国《反垄断法》关于限定最低转售价格行为违法性认定的相关规定存在的不足:规定过于抽象笼统且缺乏内在逻辑统一性;然后,在上文所确立的合理原则的指导下,总结学界观点,借鉴美国联邦法院确立的“结构性合理推定原则方法”,同时结合“瑞邦诉强生案”中法院采用的违法性认定模式,将限定最低转售价格行为的违法性认定路径归结为主体认定、目的认定和后果认定三个步骤:主体认定包括性质认定和市场地位认定;目的认定是指主体的行为目的认定,即制造商和销售商是否具有排除限制竞争的故意;后果认定主要考量市场竞争秩序、市场进入壁垒、经济效率和消费者福利四大因素。通过以上步骤,比较限定最低转售价格行为对竞争的正负效应,进而对其违法性做出认定。第四部分:结论。对文章的总体内容进行了简要总结:因理论研究不足与现行法律规定不明确之双重缘故,限定最低转售价格案件频发。鉴于此,建议反垄断法在规制该行为时适用合理原则,即对该行为进行违法性认定时,并不必然视其违法,而是适用合理原则,考量多重因素,衡平其积极效应和消极效应,进而判断其违法性,如此反垄断法方能对限定最低转售价格行为进行有效地规制。综上,文章通过对限定最低转售价格行为的法理探源、违法性认定原则的选择和认定路径的构建,结合国内外相关理论和反垄断司法执法经验,对限定最低转售价格行为的违法性认定问题进行了研究,以期对解决该问题有所裨益。
[Abstract]:Since 2010, the case of the limited resale price has been frequent and increasing year by year. "The case of 2010 Johnson case", "the Moutai Wuliangye case in 2013", "2013 compliance, the glass company and other glasses enterprise cases", "the Volkswagen case in 2014", "the Chrysler case in 2014", and many other cases have been highlighted. The core problem of our antitrust law is to limit the illegality of the lowest resale price behavior. At present, the theory of antitrust law has not formed a consistent rule of illegality, and the existing law is too abstract and lacking inherent logic unity. Based on this, this paper discusses the connotation and classification of the minimum resale price behavior and the principle and path of illegality identification. In addition to the introduction, the article mainly consists of the following four parts: the first part: the jurisprudential source of defining the illegality of the lowest resale price behavior. First, the connotation of the minimum resale price behavior is limited. The definition, on the basis of the representative views of the analytic academic circle, combined with the new limited resale price behavior in the anti-monopoly law enforcement and judicial practice, defines its connotation scientifically. Secondly, it classifies the minimum resale price behavior, according to the difference of the implementation mechanism, the different links of the trading party and the upstream enterprises. The three standards are combined with a large number of anti monopoly judicial practice, and the complex and complicated behavior of the minimum resale price is classified in order to further analyze and study. The second part: the principle of defining the illegality of the lowest resale price behavior. In the antitrust law, there are two principles to determine whether a certain act is illegal or not. In determining the principle of illegality in determining the behavior of the lowest resale price, in addition to the merits and demerits of measuring its own illegal principles and reasonable principles, we should also analyze the double effects of the minimum resale price behavior on the competition, draw on the experiences of the United States and the EU and other countries and regions, and combine our antitrust law. The third part: limiting the illegality of the lowest resale price behavior. First, it analyzes the deficiency of the relevant regulations of the anti monopoly law on the determination of the lowest resale price as the illegality. Then, under the guidance of the reasonable principle established above, we should sum up the views of the academic circles and draw lessons from the "structural rational presumption principle" established by the federal court of the United States, and combine the illegality identification model used in the "Rui state v. Johnson case" and the minimum transfer price. The cognizance path of the illegality of the action is attributed to the three steps of the subject identification, the goal identification and the consequence identification: the subject identification includes the nature identification and the market status identification; the purpose identification refers to the determination of the main body's behavior purpose, that is, whether the manufacturer and the seller have the intention to exclude the competition, and the consequence determination mainly considers the market competition order. Four factors of market entry barriers, economic efficiency and consumer welfare. Through the above steps, the positive and negative effects of the lowest resale price behavior on competition are compared and the illegality is determined. The fourth part: conclusion. The overall content of the article is briefly summarized: the lack of theoretical research and the current legal provisions are not clear. In view of this, it is suggested that the anti monopoly law apply the reasonable principle in the regulation of the act, that is, when it is illegal to identify the act, it does not necessarily look at its illegality, but applies reasonable principles, considers multiple factors, equitable its extreme effect and negative effect, and then judges its illegality and so on. The monopoly law can regulate the behavior of the minimum resale price effectively. To sum up, the article, through the jurisprudential exploration of the behavior of the minimum resale price, the selection of the principle of illegality and the construction of the identification path, the illegal recognition of the behavior of the minimum resale price in combination with the relevant theories at home and abroad and the inspection of the antitrust judicial enforcement of the law. The problem is studied in order to help solve this problem.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.294

【相似文献】