【摘要】：反壟斷法以維護自由競爭的市場經(jīng)濟為目的,保障市場發(fā)揮最優(yōu)化資源配置作用,進而推動經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展和社會的進步。根據(jù)《中華人民共和國反壟斷法》(以下簡稱《反壟斷法》)第1條,我國反壟斷法的任務(wù)為“預(yù)防和制止壟斷行為,保護市場公平競爭,提高經(jīng)濟運行效率,維護消費者利益和社會公共利益,促進社會主義市場經(jīng)濟健康發(fā)展”。壟斷與公平競爭之間的矛盾在我國特色社會主義市場經(jīng)濟的飛速發(fā)展過程中日益凸顯,由于壟斷案件的復(fù)雜多變性使得我國于2008年開始實施反壟斷法效果并不盡人意,而且涉及反壟斷民事訴訟案件,原告勝訴的案件屈指可數(shù)。而在中國反壟斷法實施與反壟斷執(zhí)法實踐的發(fā)展進程中,橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性的認定適用何種規(guī)則這一問題歷來存在較多爭議,甚至本身違法原則與合理原則起源國——美國對橫向壟斷協(xié)議協(xié)議違法性的認定也經(jīng)歷了從本身違法原則到合理原則的變遷。隨著社會經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展,壟斷行為日趨多樣化,日益豐富的案例素材也提供了立足中國反壟斷實施反思橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性的認定規(guī)則的契機。但囿于司法實踐中對橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性的認定與反壟斷執(zhí)法機構(gòu)的實踐認識乖離的困惑和我國反壟斷法有關(guān)橫向壟斷協(xié)議立法的邏輯失范與籠統(tǒng)模糊,對有關(guān)橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性認定問題成為一大瓶頸。我國反壟斷法在適用本身違法原則和合理原則規(guī)制橫向壟斷協(xié)議行為時,應(yīng)充分考慮我國的國情而不可一概而論。本文綜合運用案例類型化分析法、比較分析法、法經(jīng)濟學(xué)分析法、法解釋學(xué)分析法、歷史研究法等多種方法,基于理論與實踐考察反壟斷法關(guān)于橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性認定規(guī)則及其法律規(guī)制的具體內(nèi)容,以探求我國反壟斷法對橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性的認定形成司法、執(zhí)法實踐相統(tǒng)一的認識。通過梳理相關(guān)理論和典型案例,總結(jié)出更具體化分歧點以及相關(guān)啟示鏡鑒以建構(gòu)橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性的認定結(jié)構(gòu)型合理分析范式與判定標準。文章正文部分主要包括以下五個部分:第一部分,即導(dǎo)論部分,從深圳有害生物防治協(xié)會壟斷案出發(fā),通過簡要分析,基于此提煉出論文后面的問題。接著簡單的陳述了本文的選題背景及意義,對當前已有的規(guī)定和研究成果作出了自己的評論,對國內(nèi)外研究現(xiàn)狀進行了綜述并分析了其發(fā)展的趨勢,簡要介紹文章論述思路和研究方法;第二部分,通過對反壟斷法上“協(xié)議”的界定、橫向壟斷協(xié)議的內(nèi)涵、本身違法原則與合理原則的歷史演進和兩者之間的辨析等方面的理論分析,考察了橫向壟斷協(xié)議認定的一般理論或原理;第三部分,從實踐中典型的案例出發(fā),總結(jié)了我國司法審判與反壟斷執(zhí)法實踐認識上的分歧點,另外,對域外橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性認定規(guī)則的具體實踐進行考察,主要以美國與歐盟為例,闡述了其橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性認定規(guī)則的經(jīng)驗與啟示;第四部分,反觀與檢討中國反壟斷法上關(guān)于橫向壟斷協(xié)議的認定規(guī)則,梳理我國反壟斷立法模式的理論學(xué)說并予以辯駁,在檢討我國司法實踐橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性認定的適用方法與學(xué)界分析模式與邏輯思路的基礎(chǔ)上,厘清我國橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性認定及其適用規(guī)則,區(qū)分顯而易見達成的協(xié)議、決定與相對隱蔽達成的協(xié)同行為兩部分,根據(jù)損害其他經(jīng)營者、消費者的權(quán)益,排除、限制競爭的嚴重程度,以及社會危害性的程度分情形判斷,以結(jié)構(gòu)型合理分析范式以實現(xiàn)司法與執(zhí)法實踐認識法統(tǒng)一路徑。在最后的結(jié)語中,概括了全文的內(nèi)容,并提煉了論文的研究成果,以期為橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性認定的規(guī)則提供可資統(tǒng)一借鑒的判斷標準。希冀為完善我國反壟斷法對橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性實質(zhì)認定形成相統(tǒng)一的認識作出一定貢獻,促進我國橫向壟斷協(xié)議違法性認定在理論認知與司法實務(wù)的實踐與發(fā)展,對反壟斷法在理論領(lǐng)域的研究和實踐都有重要的指導(dǎo)意義。
[Abstract]:The purpose of the Anti-monopoly Law is to safeguard the free competition market economy and to ensure that the market plays the role of optimizing the allocation of resources so as to promote economic development and social progress. The contradiction between monopoly and fair competition has become increasingly prominent in the rapid development of the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics. The complexity and variability of monopoly cases made China in 2008. The effect of the implementation of the Anti-monopoly Law was unsatisfactory, and there were only a few cases in which the plaintiff succeeded in the anti-monopoly civil litigation cases. The origin of the principle of illegality and the principle of reasonableness-the United States'recognition of the illegality of horizontal monopoly agreements has also undergone a change from its own principle of illegality to the principle of reasonableness. With the development of social economy, monopoly behavior has become increasingly diversified, and increasingly rich case materials also provide a basis for China's anti-monopoly implementation to reflect on horizontal monopoly agreements. However, due to the confusion of the identification of the illegality of horizontal monopoly agreements in judicial practice and the misunderstanding of the practice of antimonopoly law enforcement agencies and the logic anomie and vagueness of the legislation of horizontal monopoly agreements in China's antimonopoly law, the identification of the illegality of horizontal monopoly agreements has become a major bottleneck. When applying the principles of illegality and reasonableness to regulate the conduct of horizontal monopoly agreements, China's anti-monopoly law should take full account of China's national conditions and should not be generalized. This paper investigates the specific contents of the rules and legal regulations of the transverse monopoly agreement illegality cognizance in the anti-monopoly law, in order to seek a unified understanding of the judicature and law enforcement practice of the transverse monopoly agreement illegality cognizance in the anti-monopoly law of our country. The main body of the article mainly includes the following five parts: the first part is the introduction part, starting from the Shenzhen Pest Prevention and Control Association monopoly case, through a brief analysis, based on this refinement of the problems behind the paper. This paper describes the background and significance of this topic, makes its own comments on the existing provisions and research results, summarizes the current research situation at home and abroad and analyzes its development trend, and briefly introduces the ideas and research methods of this article; the second part, through the definition of "agreement" in the anti-monopoly law, horizontal monopoly agreement The connotation, the historical evolution of the principle of violation of law and the principle of reasonableness, and the theoretical analysis between them have been studied. The general theory or principle of the cognizance of horizontal monopoly agreements has been examined. The third part, starting from the typical cases in practice, summarizes the divergence points of our judicial trial and the practice of antitrust law enforcement. The specific practice of transverse monopoly agreement illegality cognizance rules is investigated, mainly taking the United States and the European Union as examples, expounding the experience and Enlightenment of transverse monopoly agreement illegality cognizance rules; the fourth part, reviewing and reviewing the transverse monopoly agreement cognizance rules in China's anti-monopoly law, combing the theory of China's anti-monopoly legislation model. On the basis of reviewing the applicable methods and academic analysis mode and logical thinking of the illegality determination of horizontal monopoly agreements in China's judicial practice, this paper clarifies the illegality determination of horizontal monopoly agreements in China and its applicable rules, distinguishes the obvious agreements and decides to take the relatively concealed agreements as two parts. According to the judgment of impairing the rights and interests of other operators, consumers, excluding, restricting the severity of competition, and the degree of social harmfulness, this paper uses the structural and rational analysis paradigm to realize the unified path of judicial and law enforcement practice. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to the perfection of our country's anti-monopoly law and promote the practice and development of our country's theory cognition and judicial practice on the identification of transverse monopoly agreement's illegality. Antitrust law has important guiding significance in the research and practice of the theoretical field.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：揚州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D922.294

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊紅霞;;我國關(guān)于壟斷協(xié)議法律規(guī)制的缺陷分析——兼評《中華人民共和國反壟斷法(送審稿)》[J];遼寧公安司法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年01期

2 張平;;論壟斷協(xié)議罪及其刑事責任[J];理論觀察;2006年06期

3 時建中;;試評我國反壟斷法草案有關(guān)壟斷協(xié)議的規(guī)定[J];中國工商管理研究;2007年06期

4 王長秋;;我國《反壟斷法》“壟斷協(xié)議”解析[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年01期

5 鄧志松;;縱向壟斷協(xié)議解析[J];中國外資;2008年01期

6 任力;;橫向壟斷協(xié)議解析[J];中國外資;2008年02期

7 鄧文嘉;;論反壟斷法的法律價值——以壟斷協(xié)議為視角[J];消費導(dǎo)刊;2008年22期

8 張靖;;論對縱向壟斷協(xié)議的規(guī)制[J];湖南師范大學(xué)社會科學(xué)學(xué)報;2008年06期

9 黃杰;;淺析壟斷協(xié)議規(guī)制對區(qū)域性電網(wǎng)企業(yè)的影響[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年06期

10 黃潁麗;;論禁止壟斷協(xié)議及除外制度[J];經(jīng)濟師;2008年03期

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 羅穎嫻;;《反壟斷法》相關(guān)法律及適用問題研究——在中國水泥協(xié)會七屆二次常務(wù)理事會議上的演講[A];2013年各省市區(qū)水泥協(xié)會秘書長聯(lián)席會議文集[C];2013年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 王學(xué)政;壟斷協(xié)議及其規(guī)制(一)[N];中國工商報;2008年

2 王學(xué)政;壟斷協(xié)議及其規(guī)制(二)[N];中國工商報;2008年

3 記者 姚們;三分之一壟斷協(xié)議案集于建材業(yè)[N];法制日報;2013年

4 記者　鄒聲文　張宗堂;經(jīng)營者達成并實施壟斷協(xié)議將被罰款[N];新華每日電訊;2006年

5 石龍;壟斷協(xié)議的認定是工商機關(guān)執(zhí)法的關(guān)鍵[N];中國工商報;2008年

6 王學(xué)政;壟斷協(xié)議及其規(guī)制(五)[N];中國工商報;2008年

7 王學(xué)政;壟斷協(xié)議及其規(guī)制(七)[N];中國工商報;2008年

8 王學(xué)政;壟斷協(xié)議及其規(guī)制(三)[N];中國工商報;2008年

9 王學(xué)政;壟斷協(xié)議及其規(guī)制(四)[N];中國工商報;2008年

10 王學(xué)政;壟斷協(xié)議及其規(guī)制(六)[N];中國工商報;2008年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 周昀;反壟斷法論[D];中國政法大學(xué);2001年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 叢麗沙;中國壟斷協(xié)議制裁機制研究[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2009年

2 楊艷;縱向壟斷協(xié)議及其法律規(guī)制[D];蘇州大學(xué);2009年

3 陳世強;我國壟斷協(xié)議的反壟斷法規(guī)制研究[D];河北經(jīng)貿(mào)大學(xué);2011年

4 王婧;論壟斷協(xié)議豁免的一般條件[D];昆明理工大學(xué);2011年

5 陳凌;論縱向壟斷協(xié)議的認定和豁免[D];上海社會科學(xué)院;2011年

6 趙星;反壟斷法中縱向壟斷協(xié)議規(guī)制的研究[D];湖南大學(xué);2011年

7 劉振茹;行業(yè)協(xié)會壟斷協(xié)議的反壟斷法規(guī)制研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

8 李海芳;縱向價格壟斷協(xié)議的法律規(guī)制[D];暨南大學(xué);2013年

9 蘇繪然;論我國縱向價格壟斷協(xié)議的法律規(guī)制[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

10 蔣仕嬌;我國縱向壟斷協(xié)議的法律規(guī)制研究[D];昆明理工大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號：2223722