【摘要】：橫向壟斷協(xié)議本身具有聯(lián)合性與穩(wěn)定性等特點(diǎn),它會(huì)給市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)以及消費(fèi)者權(quán)益帶來損害,因此,世界各國(guó)都做出了嚴(yán)格的處罰規(guī)定。為了避免這種處罰,經(jīng)營(yíng)者往往會(huì)采取高隱蔽性的方式逃避執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)的調(diào)查與處罰,這使得對(duì)壟斷協(xié)議的查處困難。在實(shí)際執(zhí)法過程中,能夠?qū)艛鄥f(xié)議違法性直接認(rèn)定的往往是書面價(jià)格協(xié)議等證據(jù),而對(duì)于這類證據(jù)取證最為困難。與自行調(diào)查獲取證據(jù)相比,經(jīng)營(yíng)者的主動(dòng)告發(fā)往往可以使執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)獲得更多更有效的直接證據(jù)。不明確的證據(jù)規(guī)定會(huì)使申請(qǐng)者對(duì)其是否能夠符合豁免標(biāo)準(zhǔn)產(chǎn)生疑惑,不敢主動(dòng)提出申請(qǐng),阻斷寬恕制度實(shí)施的有效性;而細(xì)化的證據(jù)規(guī)定,對(duì)于誘惑申請(qǐng)者主動(dòng)提交證據(jù)證明其所參與的壟斷協(xié)議具有違法性,從而降低執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)調(diào)查取證的成本。在寬恕制度的證據(jù)相關(guān)規(guī)定中,根據(jù)不同的情形可以分為不同的內(nèi)容。申請(qǐng)者提交證據(jù)的時(shí)間在公司寬恕與個(gè)人寬恕制度中有所不同;對(duì)于啟動(dòng)調(diào)查前與啟動(dòng)調(diào)查后、免除責(zé)任與減輕責(zé)任、以及在申請(qǐng)者申請(qǐng)標(biāo)記時(shí),應(yīng)予提供的證據(jù)的質(zhì)量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不相同。對(duì)于證據(jù)質(zhì)量的規(guī)定足夠明確的國(guó)家,對(duì)后續(xù)合作義務(wù)只進(jìn)行必要性的規(guī)定即可,而對(duì)于證據(jù)質(zhì)量規(guī)定不夠明確的國(guó)家,相對(duì)而言會(huì)更加注重后續(xù)合作義務(wù)的價(jià)值,證據(jù)質(zhì)量與合作義務(wù)二者緊密聯(lián)系,可以將兩部分看作是申請(qǐng)者申請(qǐng)寬恕的整體過程,不論是提交證據(jù),抑或是積極合作,都以認(rèn)定并查處壟斷協(xié)議違法性為最終目的,并根據(jù)這一目的是否達(dá)成作為判斷申請(qǐng)者能否獲得寬恕的最終標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。此外,由于反壟斷法中的民事?lián)p害賠償無法適用寬恕制度得到豁免,故而民事責(zé)任的承擔(dān)會(huì)給寬恕申請(qǐng)者帶來一系列顧慮,最直接的就是關(guān)于寬恕制度實(shí)施過程中的一系列證據(jù)材料能否在后繼民事賠償訴訟中使用的問題,如果沒有明確合理的證據(jù)使用規(guī)則,就無法兼顧反壟斷寬恕制度的有效實(shí)施與民事賠償價(jià)值的發(fā)揮,因此應(yīng)當(dāng)明確完善寬恕申請(qǐng)者提供證據(jù)材料的保密規(guī)則以及寬恕制度實(shí)施中產(chǎn)生的裁決文件在民事賠償訴訟中的使用規(guī)則。美國(guó)、歐盟立法對(duì)于寬恕制度中的證據(jù)相關(guān)規(guī)定經(jīng)歷了從標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不清晰到漸漸清晰的立法變化,逐步符合實(shí)踐中執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)查處壟斷協(xié)議案件的需要。在我國(guó),《中華人民共和國(guó)反壟斷法》及一系列部門規(guī)章中也規(guī)定了寬恕制度的有關(guān)內(nèi)容,但是這些文件中的證據(jù)規(guī)定表述過于原則化,不具有明確性,法律效力層級(jí)低,不具有普遍適用效力。與域外發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家的成熟立法相比,我國(guó)立法只處于起步階段,尚未形成系統(tǒng)完善的寬恕制度體系。從我國(guó)近幾年的一系列橫向壟斷協(xié)議案件中可以看出,立法的缺陷給實(shí)踐帶來不便,因此亟待完善。應(yīng)當(dāng)結(jié)合我國(guó)實(shí)際情況,根據(jù)不同情形對(duì)證據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作相應(yīng)的區(qū)別規(guī)定,明確申請(qǐng)者提交證據(jù)的類型以及證據(jù)的提交方式以及申請(qǐng)者的合作義務(wù),并規(guī)定民事?lián)p害賠償訴訟中的證據(jù)使用規(guī)則。只有完善的立法,才能使寬恕制度的價(jià)值得以實(shí)現(xiàn)。
[Abstract]:The lateral monopoly agreement itself has the characteristics of joint property and stability, which can cause damage to the market competition and the consumer's rights and interests. Therefore, all the countries of the world have made strict punishment regulations. In order to avoid such punishment, the operator often takes a high concealment to avoid the investigation and punishment of the law enforcement agencies, which makes it difficult to deal with the monopoly agreement. In the course of the actual law enforcement, it is possible to directly determine the illegal nature of the monopoly agreement, often in the form of a written price agreement and so on, and it is the most difficult to obtain evidence for this kind of evidence. in contrast to that evidence obtained by the self-investigation, the operator's initiative tends to enable law enforcement agencies to obtain more and more effective direct evidence. Indefinite evidence provides that the applicant has doubts about the ability of the applicant to meet the criteria for exemption, does not dare to make an active application, and blocks the validity of the implementation of the pardon system; and the detailed evidence provides that, In order to lead the applicant to submit the evidence to prove that the monopoly agreement involved is illegal, the cost of investigation and evidence collection by the law enforcement agency is reduced. In the evidence-related provisions of the forgiveness system, different situations can be divided into different contents. The time for the applicant to submit evidence is different in the company's forgiveness and the system of personal forgiveness; the quality of the evidence to be provided should not be the same for the initiation of the investigation and after the initiation of the investigation, the liability and the liability, and the quality of the evidence that should be provided when the applicant applies for the marking. For countries where the quality of the evidence is sufficiently clear, the need for follow-up obligations is only required, and in countries where the quality of the evidence is not sufficiently clear, the value of the subsequent cooperation obligations, the quality of evidence and the obligation of cooperation are more closely linked, The two parts can be regarded as the whole process of the applicant's application for forgiveness, whether the evidence is submitted, or active cooperation, to identify and investigate the illegality of the monopoly agreement as the final purpose, and whether to reach the final standard as a judge whether the applicant can obtain the forgiveness. In addition, because the civil damages in the anti-monopoly law are not applicable to the exemption from the application of the forgiveness system, the liability of the civil liability will bring a series of concerns to the forgiveness applicant, The most direct question is whether a series of evidence materials in the implementation of the pardon system can be used in the subsequent civil compensation litigation, and if there is no clear and reasonable use of the rule, the effective implementation of the anti-monopoly pardon system and the play of the civil compensation value cannot be taken into account. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly improve the rules of application of the confidentiality rules and the application rules of the award documents generated in the implementation of the forgiveness system. In the United States, the relevant provisions of the EU legislation on the evidence in the forgiveness system have gone through the legislative changes that are not clear from the standard to the gradual and clear, and gradually meet the need of the law enforcement agencies in the practice to deal with the case of the monopoly agreement. In our country, the anti-monopoly law of the People's Republic of China and a series of department rules also stipulate the relevant contents of the forgiveness system, but the evidence in these documents is too principles, it is not clear, the legal effect level is low, and it is not universally applicable. Compared with the mature legislation of the developed countries, the legislation of our country is only at the beginning stage, and the system of the system of forgiveness is not formed. It can be seen from a series of transverse monopoly agreements in recent years that the defects of the legislation are inconvenient to practice and need to be perfected. In the light of the actual situation of our country, according to the different circumstances, the evidence standard should be provided with the corresponding difference, the type of the evidence to be submitted to the applicant and the way of the submission of the evidence and the cooperation obligation of the applicant, and the rules for the use of the evidence in the civil damages lawsuit. Only perfect legislation can make the value of the system of forgiveness be realized.
【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

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 綦書緯;;完善我國(guó)《反壟斷法》寬大制度的研究——兼就《橫向壟斷協(xié)議案件寬大制度適用指南(征求意見稿)》提出幾點(diǎn)建議[J];價(jià)格理論與實(shí)踐;2016年03期

2 ;卡特爾與濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位規(guī)制的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)[J];競(jìng)爭(zhēng)政策研究;2016年01期

3 張曉云;;反壟斷寬恕制度中執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)裁量權(quán)的規(guī)制[J];價(jià)格理論與實(shí)踐;2015年11期

4 褚清瑤;;日本反壟斷寬大制度探究[J];吉林廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2015年09期

5 盧延純;王洋林;;汽車銷售及售后領(lǐng)域價(jià)格壟斷行為的認(rèn)定——某汽車廠商及經(jīng)銷商價(jià)格壟斷案評(píng)析[J];中國(guó)價(jià)格監(jiān)管與反壟斷;2015年07期

6 許光耀;;反壟斷法上的卡特爾寬大制度[J];政法論叢;2015年03期

7 洪瑩瑩;;反壟斷法寬恕制度的中國(guó)實(shí)踐及理論反思[J];政治與法律;2015年05期

8 張正明;薛強(qiáng);唐可昕;;反價(jià)格壟斷寬大制度研究[J];價(jià)格理論與實(shí)踐;2014年08期

9 戴龍;張?zhí)扃?;論我國(guó)《反壟斷法》寬大制度的完善[J];價(jià)格理論與實(shí)踐;2014年04期

10 楊東;;我國(guó)反壟斷法實(shí)施以來壟斷協(xié)議規(guī)制情況分析[J];中國(guó)物價(jià);2013年10期

，

本文編號(hào)：2416437