【摘要】：改革開放至今,中國的汽車市場發(fā)展突飛猛進(jìn)。中國汽車的產(chǎn)量、銷量已經(jīng)長期處于全球首位,汽車產(chǎn)業(yè)已成為我國的標(biāo)志性行業(yè),支撐著我國國民經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展。目前我國汽車市場中品牌眾多,有我國的自主品牌,例如安徽的奇瑞、江淮,也有全球知名品牌奔馳、奧迪等,也有中外合資品牌,例如長安福特、上海通用等。汽車市場在"十二五"取得大發(fā)展的基礎(chǔ)上,在"十三五"一開局又表現(xiàn)出了不錯(cuò)的發(fā)展勢頭。汽車生產(chǎn)商非�？粗仄淦嚨钠放菩�(yīng),在汽車市場中有一些汽車生產(chǎn)商為了各自品牌更好的發(fā)展,達(dá)到利潤的最大化,而加強(qiáng)對汽車經(jīng)銷商的控制,對它們設(shè)定一些條件,但是這樣的行為對汽車經(jīng)銷商來說就顯得不那么公平了,也就隨之產(chǎn)生了縱向價(jià)格壟斷協(xié)議的問題。汽車市場縱向價(jià)格壟斷協(xié)議主要可以分為以下三種,即縱向推薦價(jià)格協(xié)議、最低轉(zhuǎn)售價(jià)格維持協(xié)議、維持最高轉(zhuǎn)售價(jià)格協(xié)議。目前主要有本身違法原則和合理原則去規(guī)制它們。這些縱向價(jià)格壟斷協(xié)議的形成有著其特定原因。第一,主要是由于《汽車品牌銷售管理實(shí)施辦法》已經(jīng)在我國實(shí)行十余年,對我國影響深遠(yuǎn),但是弊端明顯。第二,汽車經(jīng)銷商代表著這個(gè)汽車企業(yè)的形象,汽車生產(chǎn)商為了更好地維護(hù)其品牌形象,在消費(fèi)者心目中打造良好的形象,吸引消費(fèi)者,從而去維持銷售的體系和格局。第三,4S店的投資需要汽車經(jīng)銷商花很長一段時(shí)間才能收回成本,為了其4S店的發(fā)展,汽車經(jīng)銷商需要依附汽車生產(chǎn)商。目前《價(jià)格法》、《反壟斷法》、《反價(jià)格壟斷行政執(zhí)法程序規(guī)定》是規(guī)制汽車市場縱向價(jià)格壟斷行為的主要依據(jù),但規(guī)定較少,且可操作性較弱。另外,為早日出臺(tái)關(guān)于汽車行業(yè)的反壟斷法規(guī)制的指南,國家發(fā)改委還起草了《關(guān)于汽車業(yè)的反壟斷指南》(征求意見稿)并公開向社會(huì)征集意見,在汽車市場縱向價(jià)格壟斷協(xié)議的規(guī)制上有了更詳細(xì)的規(guī)定,進(jìn)步很大,但是目前還尚未頒布。從規(guī)制現(xiàn)狀及汽車業(yè)反壟斷經(jīng)典案例中,不難發(fā)現(xiàn)我國在規(guī)制汽車市場縱向價(jià)格壟斷協(xié)議方面尚存在著一些問題。作為目前世界上最重要的汽車市場,探討汽車市場縱向價(jià)格壟斷協(xié)議法律規(guī)制方面不足之處,有助于約束汽車生產(chǎn)商行為,以實(shí)現(xiàn)汽車市場的可持續(xù)發(fā)展,并且對完善我國的反壟斷實(shí)踐有一定意義。首先,針對《汽車品牌銷售管理實(shí)施辦法》存在的問題,需要平衡汽車生產(chǎn)商和汽車經(jīng)銷商的地位及發(fā)展多種經(jīng)銷模式。其次,針對行政執(zhí)法方面的不足,明確汽車市場縱向價(jià)格壟斷協(xié)議的違法認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),增加反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)取證方式,同時(shí)提高行政罰款的確定性、增加處罰方式,并且保障汽車生產(chǎn)商的申辯權(quán)。再次,針對司法救濟(jì)方面的不足,完善舉證責(zé)任,引入三倍懲罰性賠償機(jī)制。最后,針對汽車行業(yè)自律規(guī)范的不足,加大對汽車行業(yè)自律規(guī)范的監(jiān)督,明確汽車行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)職能的履行。
[Abstract]:Since the reform and opening up, China's automobile market has developed by leaps and bounds. The output and sales of Chinese cars have been in the first place in the world for a long time, and the automobile industry has become the iconic industry of our country, supporting the development of our national economy. At present, there are many brands in the automobile market of our country, such as Chery of Anhui, Jianghuai, Mercedes-Benz, Audi and so on, as well as Sino-foreign joint venture brands, such as Changan Ford, Shanghai General Motors and so on. On the basis of the great development of the 12th five-year Plan, the automobile market has shown a good momentum of development at the beginning of the 13th five-year Plan. Automobile manufacturers attach great importance to the brand effect of their cars. In order to better develop their respective brands and maximize their profits, some automobile manufacturers strengthen the control of automobile dealers and set some conditions for them, but such behavior is not so fair to automobile dealers, which leads to the problem of vertical price monopoly agreement. The vertical price monopoly agreement in automobile market can be divided into the following three categories: vertical recommended price agreement, minimum resale price maintenance agreement and maximum resale price agreement. At present, there are their own illegal principles and reasonable principles to regulate them. The formation of these vertical price monopoly agreements has its specific reasons. First, mainly because the implementation method of Automobile Brand sales Management has been implemented in our country for more than ten years, which has a profound impact on our country, but the disadvantages are obvious. Second, automobile dealers represent the image of this automobile enterprise. In order to better maintain their brand image, automobile manufacturers create a good image in the minds of consumers, attract consumers, so as to maintain the sales system and pattern. Third, it will take a long time for car dealers to recover costs for the investment of 4S stores, and for the development of their 4S stores, car dealers need to rely on carmakers. At present, the Price Law, the Anti-monopoly Law and the Administrative Law Enforcement procedure provisions of the Anti-Price Monopoly are the main basis for regulating the vertical price monopoly in the automobile market, but the regulations are less and the maneuverability is weak. In addition, in order to issue a guide on the antitrust regulation of the automobile industry as soon as possible, the National Development and Reform Commission has also drafted the Antimonopoly Guide on the Automobile Industry (draft for soliciting opinions) and openly solicited opinions from the society. There have been more detailed provisions on the regulation of the vertical price monopoly agreement in the automobile market, and great progress has been made, but it has not yet been promulgated. From the present situation of regulation and the classical case of antitrust in automobile industry, it is not difficult to find that there are still some problems in regulating vertical price monopoly agreement in automobile market in our country. As the most important automobile market in the world, this paper discusses the shortcomings of the legal regulation of vertical price monopoly agreement in automobile market, which is helpful to restrain the behavior of automobile manufacturers in order to realize the sustainable development of automobile market, and has certain significance to perfect the antitrust practice of our country. First of all, in view of the problems existing in the implementation of Automobile Brand sales Management, it is necessary to balance the status of automobile manufacturers and automobile dealers and develop a variety of distribution models. Secondly, in view of the shortcomings of administrative law enforcement, this paper clarifies the illegal identification standard of vertical price monopoly agreement in automobile market, increases the way of obtaining evidence by antitrust law enforcement agencies, improves the certainty of administrative fine, increases the punishment mode, and guarantees the right of defense of automobile manufacturers. Thirdly, in view of the shortcomings of judicial relief, improve the burden of proof, the introduction of three times punitive damages mechanism. Finally, in view of the shortcomings of the self-regulatory norms of the automobile industry, we should increase the supervision of the self-regulatory norms of the automobile industry and clarify the performance of the functions of the automobile industry association.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

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

2 時(shí)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

3 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

4 鄧志松;;縱向壟斷協(xié)議解析[J];中國外資;2008年01期

5 任力;;橫向壟斷協(xié)議解析[J];中國外資;2008年02期

6 鄧文嘉;;論反壟斷法的法律價(jià)值——以壟斷協(xié)議為視角[J];消費(fèi)導(dǎo)刊;2008年22期

7 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(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2008年06期

8 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(bào);2008年06期

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

10 張桐;;壟斷協(xié)議表現(xiàn)形式的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之構(gòu)建——對我國《反壟斷法》中壟斷協(xié)議相關(guān)條款的反思[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年04期

相關(guān)會(huì)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(huì)七屆二次常務(wù)理事會(huì)議上的演講[A];2013年各省市區(qū)水泥協(xié)會(huì)秘書長聯(lián)席會(huì)議文集[C];2013年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)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(bào);2008年

2 王學(xué)政;壟斷協(xié)議及其規(guī)制(二)[N];中國工商報(bào);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(bào);2013年

4 記者　鄒聲文　張宗堂;經(jīng)營者達(dá)成并實(shí)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(rèn)定是工商機(jī)關(guān)執(zhí)法的關(guān)鍵[N];中國工商報(bào);2008年

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

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

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

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

10 王學(xué)政;壟斷協(xié)議及其規(guī)制(六)[N];中國工商報(bào);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(jī)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(qiáng);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(rèn)定和豁免[D];上海社會(huì)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(huì)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(jià)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(jià)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(hào)：2505491