頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 事業以聯合行為或濫用市場地位調漲價格經處分後,要求回復原價之探討=A Study on the Power to Order Price Reversal (by the FTC) After Firms Engaging in Collusive or Abusive Pricing Behavior Having Been Sanctioned |
---|---|
作者 | 陳志民; 吳秀明; | 書刊名 | 公平交易季刊 |
卷期 | 11:2 2003.04[民92.04] |
頁次 | 頁41-109 |
分類號 | 553.721 |
關鍵詞 | 聯合行為; 獨占訂價; 濫用市場地位; 回復原價; 反托拉斯法; Concerted action; Monopoly paicing; Abuse of merket position; Price reversal; Antitrust law; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本文擬就事業因聯合協議或濫用市場地位不當抬高價格經處分禁止後,倘市場價格仍處於非競爭水平時,競爭主管機關有無法理及政策考量上之依據,得要求違法事業將價格回復至勾結前之價格水平,為一比較法之分析研究。除介紹與分析美國,德國與歐盟相關競爭法規與法院實務對此一議題之看法外,並將從反托拉斯法學理的觀點,思考各該國家之經驗,對我國公平會能否介入非勾結與非被管制事業之價格決定過程,其可介入之程度為何,以及反托拉斯法土之私人訴訟制度於此一議題上所可以扮演的角色,有何值得借鏡之處。文中並提出較為具體可行之建議與作法以供公平會參考。 |
英文摘要 | In this article, we intend to explore the issue concerning whether the FTC should have the authority to mandate a price reversal to the pre-violation level when the alleged non-competitive price resulting from collusion or the abuse of a firm’s dominant market position remains intact even after the violators have been punished and have ended their inappropriate competing behavior. We approached this issue by relying on the experience of the United States, Germany, and the European Union to examíne whether it had ever been presented to and decided by the enforcement agencies and the courts in those countries. In particular, we focus on whether their experience could be translated into our legal system to support or disapprove the extension of the FTC’s power to set the prices for industries not subject to rate regulation. In addition, whether private antirust litigation is capable of functioning equivalently as an alternative to price reversal in terms of maintaining market competition and the protection of consumers will also be elaborated upon in this article. We conclude this article by presenting tentative but concrete suggestions to the FTC on what could be done to resolve this issue, and in what manners. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。