摘要
海南省高院在裕泰案中确认了执法机关对RPM适用本身违法原则的合法性,并从四个方面对此进行论证。但该论证存在众多问题。首先,论证中存在否定前件式等推理错误,以及结构凌乱、关系不清等结构性问题。例如,未直接回答归纳的法律争点,以超出争点的论证来回应争点。其次,论证中使用了大量不相关的理由。例如,以执法机构对兜底项的裁量权论证立法对列举项的立法态度;以《反垄断法》多重目的论证反垄断执法的"预防"目的,进而论证RPM无需排除限制竞争效果要件;以第15条豁免规定论证《反垄断法》的立法目的和执法目的。再次,论证中使用了众多不可接受的前提。例如,以第3条列举垄断协议的措辞否定垄断协议包含效果要件;认为反垄断执法的预防目的和第46条的规定要求制裁不满足效果要件的行为;过度放大兜底项包含的自由裁量权;误读第15条的制度目的;混淆第50条民事责任条款涉及的不同损害类型。
In the antitrust case between Hainan Price Bureau and Hainan Yutai Technology Feed Co., Ltd., the High People＇s Court of Hainan Province affirmed the legality of the Bureau applying the per se illegality approach to RPM, and made arguments in four aspects for this ruling. However, these arguments abound with problems. Firstly, there are logical fallacies like denying the antecedent, and structural problems like chaotic structures and ambiguous relationships between arguments. For example, the opinion doesn＇t directly answer the legal issue summarized by the court, and tries to respond to the issue with arguments beyond answering the issue. Secondly, many irrelevant premises are used in these arguments. For example, the opinion tries to argue the legislative attitude to RPM, an enumerated agreement of Article 14 of Antimonopoly Law （AML）, on the basis of antitrust agency＇s discretion endowed by the catchall clause of Article 14; tries to argue the antitrust enforcement＇s ＂preventive＂ goal and further argue the unnecessity of anticompetitive effect element of illegal RPM on the basis of the multiple goals of AML; and tries to argue the legislative and enforcement goals of AML on the basis of the exemption provision of Article 15 of AML. Thirdly, many unacceptable premises are used in these arguments. For example, the opinion negated the anticompetitive effect element of monopoly agreements （including RPM） on the basis of the wording of Article 3 of AML enumerating monopoly agreements without explicitly mentioning anticompetitive effect; opines that the preventive goal of AML and the penalty provision of Article 46 of AML demand AML punish agreements short of satisfying the anticompetitive effect element; unduly exaggerates the discretion endowed by the catchall clause; misunderstands the institutional function of Article 15; and confuses different types of harm implicated by the civil liability clause of Article 50.
出处
《竞争政策研究》
2018年第4期64-94,共31页
Competition Policy Research
关键词
反垄断法
垄断协议
转售价格维持
合理原则
本身违法原则
竞争
损害
Antitrust Law
Monopoly Agreement
Resale Price Maintenance （RPM）
Rule of Reason
Per Se Illegality
Competition
Harm
