论文部分内容阅读
在市场行为一致的基础上依据间接证据推定“协同行为”这种垄断协议的存在对于任何司法区域而言都是一个复杂的问题。在中国,由于立法的不完善及执法经验的欠缺,时协同行为的认定应持审慎态度。市场结构及产品特性、被交流信息的特性及交流的方式、竞争者是否能够提出除“协同行为”之外的合理解释,是认定协同行为时应逐步分析的几个因素。与此同时,针对企业单方面通过信息交流进行的,而对方未接受的,从而尚未构成垄断协议的价格协同邀请,中国可以在计划起草的《反不正当价格行为规定》中予以规制。为了降低企业的守法成本,立法者可在深入了解行业市场结构、产品特点及商业惯例等方面的行业特点的基础上,制定垄断协议豁免规定。
The existence of a monopoly agreement based on indirect evidence based on consistent market conduct is a complex issue for any jurisdictional area. In China, due to the imperfect legislation and the lack of law enforcement experience, the determination of coordinated behavior should be cautious. Market structure and product characteristics, the nature of the information to be communicated and the way in which it is communicated, and whether the competitor is able to propose a reasonable explanation other than the “cooperative behavior” are several factors that should be analyzed step by step when determining the collaborative behavior. In the meantime, China can regulate the “Anti-Unjustified Price Rules of Conduct” that it plans to draft in response to the price coordination invitation unilaterally exchanged by the enterprises that the other party did not accept and has not yet formed a monopoly agreement. In order to reduce the cost of law-abiding enterprises, lawmakers can formulate the exemption provisions of monopoly agreements on the basis of in-depth understanding of the characteristics of industries in the industrial market structure, product features and business practices.