查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 罪刑法定主義與聯合行為之定義--公平交易法第七條有關聯合行為之規定究屬概括規定或列舉性規定之研究=Principle of Legality and the Definition of Concerted Action |
---|---|
作 者 | 吳秀明; | 書刊名 | 公平交易季刊 |
卷 期 | 6:4 1998.10[民87.10] |
頁 次 | 頁51-77 |
分類號 | 585.8 |
關鍵詞 | 罪刑法定主義; 聯合行為; 公平交易法; 概括規定; 列舉規定; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 依據公平交易法第七條之規定,「商品或服務之價格,或限制數量、技術、產 品、設備、交易對象、交易地區等,相互已約束事業活動」係屬於聯合行為合意之內容。此一規定原在對於聯合行為合意之內容加以闡明,不料公平法實施以後,卻因聯合行為係屬一種刑事不法行為之考慮,而產生本條規定究屬於「列舉規定」或「例示規定」而異其處罰範圍之疑義。 本文認為公平法第七條之性質應為例示規定,並從刑法以及競爭法之觀點說明其可行性。自刑法之觀點而論,例示規定並不違反罪刑法定主義對於法律明確性之要求。因為,例示規定已經足夠明確,且我國刑法上己可見到許多例示規定之立法例,最後比較法上亦可得到充分之印證。自競爭法之觀點而言,將公平法第七條解釋為例示規定,更為符合其立法目的。其理由如下:1.公平交易法第七條所規定之「商品或服務之價格,或限制數量、技術、產品、設備、交易對象、交易地區等,相互約束事業活動」,即為「限制競爭」之意,而無論學說或實務見解均認為,限制競爭之內容不應限於公平法第七條所舉之例。2.在比較法上,美國、歐盟、德國及日本法對於同一問題,均採較接近於例示規定之立場。3.公平交易法所規範之市場行為具有複雜、動態、不確定等之特性,為能夠廣泛地保護競爭,法律上使用其有一定彈性之用語來規範事業之行為,實有其必要。 |
英文摘要 | According to the article 7 of the Fair Trade Law, "mutual restraints of the enterprises’ activities with regard to the prices of goods or services, quantities, technology, products, equipment, trading counterparts, trading territories, etc" are the contents of the concerted actions. Whether the various contents of the concerted actions mentioned above are enumerated by the article 7 of the Fair Trade Law (it makes article 7 a so-called enumerative provision) or they only serve as instances in the application of this artic1e (then article 7 will be a so-called illustrative provision) has been disputed since the Fair Trade Law came into force. The reason why the dispute is meaningful, is that it determines the scope of the criminal liability of the offenders who commit concerted action. This paper stand for the opinion that the aforementioned items regulated in the article 7 of the Fair Trade Law are serving to illustrate different kinds of contents of a concerted actions, not to enumerate them. We have many reasons for having this point of view. In the first place, the "illustrative provisions" do not go against the demands and the spirit of the "Principle of Explicitness" which derives from the "Principle of Legality" because 1.the illustrative provisions are generally explicit enough and 2. the Penal Code already contains numerous such kind of regulations and finally we can also find the same examples in the foreign criminal code. The standpoint of this paper will be more convincing and it will be also more in accordance with the legislative intent of the article 7 of the Fair Trade Law if we add some arguments in the light of the competition law: 1. The "mutual restraints of the enterprises’ activities with regard to the prices of goods or services, quantities, technology, products, equipment, trading counterparts, trading territories, etc" regulated in the article 7 of the Fair Trade Law means actually the "mutual restraints of competition". According to the theories and the practices of the FTC, it should be interpreted as broadly as possible. 2. The same conc1usion can be reached after we made a research into the same question in the competition laws of the United States, European Union, Germany and Japan. 3. The market behaviors regulated in the Fair Trade Law have the features of Complexity, Dynamism and Uncertainty, so that in order to protect the competition as much as possible, using more elastic legal terms to regulate the enterprises’ activities is indispensable. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。