查詢結果分析
相關文獻
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 平行行為乎?一致性行為乎?--評析中油、臺塑油品調價案=Conscious Parallel Conducts or Concerted Actions?--The Case of Concerted Pricing of Oil Products between Chinese Petroleum Corp. and Formosa Petrochemical Corp. |
---|---|
作 者 | 何之邁; | 書刊名 | 臺北大學法學論叢 |
卷 期 | 58 民95.06 |
頁 次 | 頁145-174 |
分類號 | 585.8 |
關鍵詞 | 聯合行為; 一致性行為; 平行行為; 價格預告; 寡占市場; Cartel; Concerted action; Conscious parallel conduct; Advance price announcement; Oligopoly; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本文係藉由行政院公平交易委員會對於中油與台塑間油品調價之行為所為之處分案,探討寡占市場上一致性行為與平行行為之問題。於聯合規範之執法實務上,聯合合意之舉證向為各國主管機關執法上之最大難題,為解決此項難題,各國遂漸次發展出所謂「一致性行為理論」,其內涵乃透過各種間接證據、間接事實,對於事業間客觀一致之市場行為,推論其間具有聯合合意之存在。於寡占市場上,由於事業數少、市場透明度高、事業間具高度之相互依賴性,故易產生所謂之平行行為,即一旦某事業為特定之決策行為,他事業隨即有所反應並而跟隨之。此等行為與一致性行為,相似之處在於事業問於市場上有客觀一致之行為,相異之處在於平行行為係出自事業之自主行為,彼此間無意思聯絡,一致性行為則有之。因此,如何區別寡占市場上事業間客觀一致之行為,究屬平行行為抑或係一致性行為,實屬重大課題。就此,本文首先探討學界及實務上對一致性行為之見解與操作方式,並介紹國內相關之案例;接著,以此為基礎並引用外國立法與實務,針對本案進行檢討與分析,認為一致性行為理論之適用,因非依據直接證據證明,是執法機關於引用該理論以認定聯合合意之存在與否,應審慎為之,以免引起不必要之爭議與質疑。 |
英文摘要 | The purpose of this essay is to discuss the problems of concerted actions and conscious parallel conducts in oligopoly markets by reviewing the case of concerted pricing of oil products between Chinese Petroleum Corp. and Formosa Petrochemical Corp.. In the enforcement of the law prohibiting cartels, proving the existence of communications among undertakings (or say “the meeting of minds”) is fraught with difficulties that have bothered the authorities seriously for long. The theory of concerted actions is created to solve these difficulties, proving the existence of communications among undertakings by indirect evidence and inference from it. In oligopoly markets, conscious parallel conducts─ that is, once one undertaking decides some strategy, others react immediately and decide the same one- occur easily and frequently because of the fewer number of undertakings, the higher transparency, and the higher interdependence among undertakings. Both conscious parallel conducts and concerted actions have identical, extrinsic acts objectively and the difference between them is that there is no communication among undertakings that do conscious parallel conducts, while undertakings must communicate mutually to coordinate their behavior. Therefore, it is quite an important task to distinguish concerted actions from conscious parallel conducts when confronting the identical, extrinsic acts in oligopoly markets. This essay first introduces the academic theories, the methods of operation and some leading cases about concerted actions, continues to review the case of concerted pricing of oil products between Chinese Petroleum Corp. and Formosa Petrochemical Corp. based on the mentioned above and foreign legislations, and makes the conclusion that the authority should apply the concerted action theory cautiously because the theory is based on indirect evidence to prove the subjective condition of cartelization. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。