论文部分内容阅读
在我国,学术界与实务界对转售价格维持规制路径的选择分歧严重,其中大多数学者及法院青睐采用合理原则,少数学者及反垄断执法机构则倾向于采用可抗辩的违法推定规则。产生这种分歧的原因在于我国反垄断法对转售价格维持的规制深受欧盟及美国经验的双重影响,而这两种规制路径并无法兼容。因此,若要确立转售价格维持反垄断法规制的理想路径,就必须明确路径选择时所要面对的潜在逻辑前提,即规制路径与我国经济发展状况的契合度以及规制路径与经济学发展状况的契合度。分析表明,可抗辩的违法推定规则比合理原则更为可取。
In our country, there are serious differences between academics and practitioners on the choice of resale price regulation. Most scholars and courts favor the use of reasonable principles. A few scholars and antitrust law enforcement agencies prefer to use defactable presumption rules. The reason for this disagreement lies in the fact that the regulation of the resale price in China’s antitrust law is greatly influenced by the experience of EU and the United States. However, the two regulatory paths are not compatible. Therefore, if we want to establish the ideal route to maintain the resale price regulation, we must make clear the potential logical premise to be faced when choosing the route, that is, the fit between the regulatory path and the economic development in our country and the regulatory path and economic development The degree of fit. The analysis shows that defensible rules of presumption of law are more desirable than reasonable principles.