請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/30764
標題: | 寡占市場聯合行為之合意認定-以中油與台塑處分案為例 The identification of agreement for concerted action under oligopoly-an example of administrative decision for Chinese Petroleum and Formosa Plastic case |
作者: | Wei-Han Wu 吳為涵 |
指導教授: | 黃銘傑 |
關鍵字: | 聯合行為,合意,平行行為,間接證據,中油,台塑, concerted action,cartel,collusion,parallel behavior,indirect evidence, |
出版年 : | 2007 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 依照公平會公處字第093102號處分書認定,中油與台塑間聯合調整油價一事,已經構成公平法第七條之聯合行為。然而,探究該處分書內容可知,受處分人外部雖然有同步調整油價的協調行為,卻沒有其他事證顯示受處分人內部也就此等油價之調整有所約定。則表面上所呈現的「聯合調整油價」的行為,究竟係屬受處分人各自依照商業合理性判斷,而出現的平行行為,亦或受處分人暗中勾結的結果?即為此處分案最受爭議之處。
事實上,反托拉斯法已經施行多年,打擊聯合行為(或稱卡特爾)一直為各國競爭法主管機關的首要任務之一。然而,有意從事卡特爾之事業或個人,早已從悠久的打擊卡特爾歷史中習得如何規避主管機關的處分,而採用更為隱匿而不為外人所知的方式,進行聯合行為之合意。既然,沒有事業會大剌剌地用顯而易見的方法來約定從事聯合行為,則在直接證據不可得的情況下,主管機關必須學習如何從間接證據來認定聯合行為合意之有無。藉此,不僅能有效打擊卡特爾,也可以避免因為錯誤之處分,而危害良善事業的經濟活動。 我國公平法立法不過十數載,相關學說與案例之累積尚嫌薄弱,但是對於正確認定聯合行為合意之有無的需求,絕不亞於歐美各國。本文即從比較法的觀點出發,探討美國與歐洲的競爭法主管機關以及法院,對於運用間接證據來認定聯合行為合意的步驟與見解。期盼能作為我國將來處理相關案件時之參考。 The Fair Trade Commission (“FTC”) stated in its decision letter with ref. No. 093102 that by adjusting their gasoline prices almost simultaneously Chinese Petroleum and Formosa Plastic engaged in concerted actions (a “cartel”) in violation of Article 7 of the Fair Trade Law (“FTL”). Even though we may conclude from the available information that Chinese Petroleum and Formosa Plastic did indeed raise and reduce their prices nearly in unison, we have found upon review of the FTC’s decision that the FTC had uncovered no direct evidence concerning a real agreement between Chinese Petroleum and Formosa Plastic for the concerted action. We cannot help but wonder whether rational, independent business strategies or concerted actions caused the parallel adjustment of gasoline prices. The issues arising from this case merit discussion. Anti-cartel regulations have been in place for years; competent authorities around the world have constantly held the identification and suppression of cartels as a main goal. However, enterprises intending to engage in cartels have learned from past cases that to avoid punishment from the competent authority, they cannot make direct agreements for concerted actions. These enterprises thus develop other mechanisms or strategies to tacitly engage in cartels. Without any direct evidence, it becomes difficult for competent authorities to crackdown on cartels and more likely that the competent authorities will misunderstand or mistake other legal business conduct for illegal behavior. Such misunderstandings inevitably hinder a country’s economic development. Consequently, our FTC and courts should learn to correctly determine the existence of collusion between enterprises using indirect evidence. Using American and European judgments and academic materials, this thesis studies how other countries have effectively dealt with this issue in order to show how we can improve our own ability to appropriately handle similar cases. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/30764 |
全文授權: | 有償授權 |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-96-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.07 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。