法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 從司法審查實務論聯合行為「合意」要件再修正(The Problematic Interpretation of “Concordant Intent” in the Litigations of Cartel Cases: Amendments to the Fair Trade Law?)
編著譯者: 石世豪
出版日期: 2021.01
刊登出處: 台灣/公平交易季刊第 29 卷 第 1 期 /1-64 頁
頁  數: 52 點閱次數: 481
下載點數: 208 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 石世豪
關 鍵 詞: 行政訴訟判決系統化研究聯合一致行為合意暗默勾結推定決議類型化公平交易法
中文摘要: 本文首先說明我國公平交易法關於聯合行為要件及其認定方式 2 次重要修正,概要比較我國立法所明定「契約、協議」、「決議」與「其他方式之合意」等聯合行為型態彼此之間概念異同。其次,本文再以 1999 年至 2019 年 5 月間行政法院有關聯合行為已確定的終局判決為研究範圍,針對其中涉及聯合行為「合意」要件的解釋與認定相關爭議者,整理、分析行政法院終審法律意見,觀察上述公平法修正是否提供法院定紛止爭所需明確標準,抑或仍由美國及歐盟等「先進」競爭法制經驗引導法院取決兩造主張。從行政法院終審法律意見所聚焦的聯合行為「合意」要件解釋與認定相關爭議,對照其與美國反托拉斯法及歐盟競爭法上關於「卡特爾」或「勾結」概念內涵之間的異同情形,凸顯我國公平法實務運作朝向上述「先進」競爭法匯流趨勢之後;有鑑於各國競爭法跨境競合、核心規範彼此趨同發展,文末因此建議:我國公平法規定允宜兼顧實務運作需求,適度調整聯合行為「合意」要件的法條用語。
英文關鍵詞: Administrative LitigationJudgementsSystematic AnalysisCartelConcerted PracticesConcordant IntentCollusionPresumptionResolutionTypesFair Trade Law
英文摘要: This article systematically analyzes final decisions of the administrative courts on cartel cases. Based on a team-work project conducted in the year 2019, it is observed that judges interpreted “concordant intent” in the cartel definition of the Fair Trade Law in a way quite similar to their peers in other jurisdictions, although the applicable statutes differed from one another. While officially translated into English as a “concerted action” that contains an element of “mutual understanding”, the literal definition of a cartel according to the Fair Trade Law in its original Mandarin version more closely resembles the concept of a “contract” in the Taiwan Civil Code which shall be constituted through the parties expressing “concordant intent”. Nevertheless, the decisions of administrative courts have acknowledged more broadly-defined cartels. Three types of cartel have been identified in judicial reviews, namely, an agreement, a resolution and a concerted practice. This echoes the dominant interpretation of the “Kartel” concept used in German courts. Yet the German Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen was amended accordingly in harmony with the EU competition law. The definition of a cartel according to the Fair Trade Law, on the other hand, does not depart from the concept of a “meeting of minds” and thus provides little room for the triad typology. In cartel litigations accused cartel participants have often disputed their participation claiming no “meeting of minds” on their part. Inserting a new amendment in the Fair Trade Law, which explicitly prescribes the presumption of “concordant intent” by considerable factors related to the business conduct, resulted in no evident alleviation of disputes over and around the “meeting of minds” element of a cartel in the litigation practice during the first 5 years following the amendment. This article suggests that the amendment of the wording in the cartel definition of the Fair Trade Law in a way parallel to that of the harmonization of the “Kartel” concept in the German GWB with the EU competition law could have resulted in a less problematic interpretation in the cartel litigation.
目  次: 一、前言
二、聯合行為定義及其要件立法
(一)2002 年部分條文修正
(二)2015 年初全文修正
(三)立法變革
三、關於聯合行為「合意」要件及其認定的司法見解
(一)聯合行為「合意」要件涉訟判決整理
(二)前期判決中的終審見解
(三)中期判決中的終審見解
(四)後期判決中的終審見解
(五)修法前後終審見解變化
四、「合意」?「卡特爾」禁止規範原典及其演變
(一)美國反托拉斯法上「協議」與「共謀」概念
(二)德國向歐盟調和的「卡特爾」三種類型
(三)比較觀察
五、聯合行為「合意」要件再修正芻議
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列