欧盟宽恕制度的沿革及对我国的启示
The Evolution of the EU Forgiveness System and Its Enlightenment to China
摘要: 卡特尔作为对市场自由竞争危害最严重的行为,不仅会损害消费者的利益,甚至会破坏一国的市场经济自由和公平竞争的市场环境。我国由于对卡特尔宽恕制度的立法相较于美国、欧盟等国家启动较晚,法规较不完善,且尚未形成丰富的实践经验。欧盟委员会先后于1996年、2002年、2006年发布了三份关于宽恕制度的适用公告,且其近二十年来公告的适用形成了许多经典的案例,随着时间的不断发展,欧盟委员会不断对宽恕制度进行完善,通过从历史沿革的角度和案例分析的方法,总结出其发展趋势,比如申请主体的条件逐渐放宽、对于申请者所提供的证据要求标准逐渐清晰、申请减少罚款的主体义务逐渐增多等趋势。从而使我国宽恕制度及其相关制度趋向精细化和科学化,提高我国宽大制度适用指南的实践性,更好打击实践中存在的卡特尔。
Abstract:
As the most serious harm to the free market competition, the cartel will not only lead to the damage to the interests of consumers, but also destroy the freedom of market economy and the market environment of fair competition. Compared with the United States, the European Union and other countries, the legisla-tion of cartel forgiveness system was started late in China, and the regulations are not perfect, and rich practical experience has not yet been formed. The European commission has in 1996, 2002, 2006 issued three notices about the forgiveness system, and its nearly twenty years announcement applicable formed many classic cases. With the continuous development of time, the European commission to improve forgiveness system, from the perspective of history and case analysis method, summarizes its development trend, such as the application subject conditions gradually relaxed, for the applicant evidence standard gradually clear, applying to reduce the fine subject ob-ligation gradually increased, etc. Thus, China’s forgiveness system and its related systems tend to be refined and scientific, improve the practicality of China’s lenient system application guide, and bet-ter combat the cartel existing in practice.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
Walzl, M. and Feess, E. (2003) Corporate Leniency Program in the EU and the USA. German Working Paper in Law and Economics Volume 2003, Paper 24. https://ssrn.com/abstract=384740
|
|
[2]
|
李剑. 中国反垄断法实施中的体系冲突与化解[J]. 中国法学, 2014(6): 138-153.
|
|
[3]
|
计蓉. 中欧德反垄断法宽恕制度比较研究[J]. 经济法论丛, 2018(2): 277-307.
|
|
[4]
|
万雄. 反垄断法修订背景下宽恕制度适用问题及优化研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 重庆: 西南政法大学, 2021.
|
|
[5]
|
王玉辉. 欧盟卡特尔案件宽大制度及启示[J]. 河北法学, 2010, 28(12): 156-161.
|
|
[6]
|
岑兆琦. 威慑和分化卡特尔的“利器”: 宽大政策——美国与欧盟宽大政策的比较及启示[J]. 国际贸易, 2010(6): 60-64.
|
|
[7]
|
Massiomo, M. (2006) Fighting Cartels: Economic Analysis and European Union. CPRC Discussion Paper Series, CPDP-19-E, 14.
|
|
[8]
|
Arbault, F. and Peir, F. (2002) The Commission’s New Notice on Immunity and Reduc-tion of Fines in Cartel Cases: Building on Success. Competition Policy Newsletter, No. 2, 15-22.
|
|
[9]
|
刘廷涛. 欧盟卡特尔适用规则及豁免规定对中国之启示[J]. 东方法学, 2015(3): 134-144.
|
|
[10]
|
吴津, 何焰. 欧共体竞争法中卡特尔案件的罚款规则[J]. 北京航空航天大学学报(社会科学版), 2012, 25(1): 57-62+84.
|
|
[11]
|
金美蓉. 核心卡特尔规制制度研究[M]. 北京: 对外经济贸易大学出版社, 2009: 148.
|
|
[12]
|
唐琦. 论反垄断法宽恕制度适用条件的完善[J]. 中国价格监管与反垄断, 2021(8): 45-48.
|
|
[13]
|
焦海涛. 论我国对欧盟卡特尔案件和解程序的引入与改造[J]. 中南大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 27(4): 96-110.
|
|
[14]
|
张文静, 刘晓平. 反垄断法宽恕制度适用条件比较研究[J]. 黑龙江人力资源和社会保障, 2021(19): 115-117.
|
|
[15]
|
侯文婷. 论欧盟宽恕制度的适用条件及其启示[J]. 湖北警官学院学报, 2013, 26(5): 100-103.
|
|
[16]
|
林文. 中国反垄断行政执法数据分析报告(2019年) [J]. 竞争法律与政策评论, 2020, 6(00): 233-314.
|
|
[17]
|
娄丙录. 反垄断法宽恕制度的理论基础与实效保障[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), 2010, 28(5): 84-92.
|