查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 公平交易法第三十五條、三十六條刑事處罰與第四十一條行政處分的比較--以我國實務運作為中心=Comparing Criminal Penalty of Article 35、36 with Administrative Penalty of Article 41 in Fair Trade Law |
---|---|
作 者 | 謝杞森; | 書刊名 | 公平交易季刊 |
卷 期 | 9:2 2001.04[民90.04] |
頁 次 | 頁13-35 |
分類號 | 585.8 |
關鍵詞 | 公平交易法; 刑事處罰; 行政處分; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 公平交易法於民國88年2月3日修法前僅第三十六條針對違反第十九條規定時採用所謂「先行政後司法」,即違法者經中央主管機闖命其停止其行為而不停止者,始對行為人處以徒刑或罰金的刑事責任。修法後,於第三十五條亦增加對違反獨占濫用 (第十條)、聯合行為 (第十四條) 與仿冒 (第二十條第一項) 的規定亦採取「先行政後司法」的手段。同時在第三十五條與第三十六條修正文中均增加「…或停止後再為相同或類似違反行為者,…」之文字,而第四十一條則未增加相同之文字。 雖然是短短的十幾個字,但卻引起相當大的爭議。何謂「相同行為」?何謂「類似行為」?是否因其行為你屬限制競爭的行為或不正競爭的行為而有不同的認定標準?而第四十一條修正時未增加相同之文字,究竟是立法的疏漏或有意加以區別?若是立法的疏漏,則應該如何解讀第四十一條的規定?將攸關業者巨大之權益。蓋公平交易委會在民國88年提案修法時為了保有嚇阻的效果,採取窮化違法者的手段,即將刑事罰金之最高金額提高到新台幣一億元,行政罰援的最高金額則提高到初犯新台幣二千五百萬元、不改正時罰新台幣五千萬元。 本文先從公平交易法第三十五條與第三十六條的刑事處罰與刑法連續犯及累犯的概念作一釐清,並將公平交易法第四十一條行政處分不同於一般行政的特色加以說明,最後將「先行政後司法」作一檢討,祈能對我國公平交易法的實務運作有所幫助。 |
英文摘要 | After the Fair Trade Law of ROC was amended on February 3, 1999., Article 35 is ruled: 「If any enterprise violating the provisions of Article 10, 14, or paragraph 1of Article 20 is ordered by the central competent authority pursuant to Article 41 to cases therefrom, rectify its conduct, or take necessary corrective action within the time prescribed in the order, and after the lapse of such period, shall such enterprise fail to cases therefrom, rectify such conduct, or take any necessary corrective action, or after its ceasing therefrom, shall such enterprise have the same or similar violation again, the actor shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or detention, or by a fine of not more than one hundred million New Taiwan Dollars, or by both.」 this idea is the Principle of 「administrative enforcement before criminal procedure」.Article 35 and 36 of Fair Trade Law were added some words amended……shall such enterprise have the same or similar violation again……, but Article 41 of Fair Trade Law was not added the same words. These words are arguable. What is "the same violation again"? What is "the similar violation again"? How does the central competent authority explain it? These puzzles affect greatly Enterprise. This paper tries to explain it and compare Article 35, 36, 41 of Fair Trade Law with Article 47, 55, 56 of Criminal Code (about recidivism and combined punishment for several offences), and then compare criminal penalty of Article 35, 36 with administrative penalty of Article 41 in Fair Trade Law. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。