查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 論歐洲共同體對聯合行為的管制--從群體除外(Block Exemption)制度看超國家體制執行經濟管制的方法與困境=Control and Regulation for Concerted Practices in the European Community--Lessons Taken from the Enforcement of Block Exemption in a Supranational Organization |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 魏杏芳; | 書刊名 | 公平交易季刊 |
卷期 | 7:2 1999.04[民88.04] |
頁次 | 頁107-146 |
分類號 | 585.8 |
關鍵詞 | 歐洲共同體; 群體除外; 超國家體制; 經濟管制; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 歐洲共同體 (以下簡稱「歐體) 可說是卓有成效的區域性組織,其目標是在歐體全境內,建立一個貨物、人員、服務及資本完全自由流通,有如內國市場般的內部市場,為達成此一目標,歐體必須採行種種措施,其中之一,就是建立一制度體系以確保內部市場的競爭不被扭曲。早在1966年著名的Consten-Grundig v. Commission案判中,歐洲法院即明白指出共同體的競爭規則是實現歐洲整合的策略之一。歐體的組織定性在國際法上曾引起廣泛的討論?目前最常以「超國家組織」(supranational organizations)一詞來凸顯歐體的特殊性。 歐洲共同體條約第八十五條是有關聯合行為的規定,一向被視為共同體競爭規範的核心。本條是以所謂的「禁止原則」(probibition principle) 為基礎,另外規定了豁免管道,使具限制競爭特的契約或協議,得以其經濟上利益平衡其不利益而例外獲得許可。依理事會1962年發布的「第十七號規則」第九條第一項之規定,執行委員會 (以下稱「執委會) 是唯一有權計可除外的機關。當事人為確定其所簽訂的協議或決定是否合法,得將其協議向執委會提出通知,尋求執委會肯定其行為合法性的證明,也就是獲得「反面釋疑」(negative c1earance),或者個別除外 (individual exemption)。可惜當事人通常甚少獲得執委會任何反面釋疑或個別許可除外的正式決定。估計平均每三十件中只有一件以正式的決定 (即禁止、反面釋疑或個別除外許可三種情形) 結案:即使作成決定,審核的程序曠日廢時,因此執委會多管齊下以解決實務上的難題,故發展出活潑的非正式程序,也就是以大量行政文書─舒慰函 (comfort letter) 書來處理當事人的申請,此外本文所 討論的群體除外規則也是在解決積案壓力下的產物。 Block exemption,或稱為group exemption,在國內的用語並不統一,有多種譯法,例如類別豁免、集體豁免、類型豁免及整批豁免等不一而足,本文則直接按字面譯為群體除外。 群體除外是指由理事會或執委會 (通常是執委會) 以「規則」規定除外的條件,使其特定類型的協議、決定或一致性行為 (a certain category of agreements, decisions and concerted practices) 自動不適用第八十五條第一項,無須執委會作成個別的決定,影響所及是不定量的契約或協議受惠,因此稱之為群體除外。群體除外制度的主要目的之一,在避免大量的協議必須向執委會提出通知,以減輕執委會審核的負擔,它被視為清除積案的最有效方法。 各群體除外規則大約有一共適的形式,即前言 (preambles) 首先勾勒該規則的基礎原則,次描述應予除外的契約基本類型,再說明得允許的限制競爭條款 (即所謂「白色條款」(white clauses) ),以及應予禁止的限制競爭條款清單 (被以「黑名單」(black-listed clauses) 稱之),最後附以其他雜項規定。無論是「白色條款」或「黑名單」都能給協議當事人指示,俾利自行判斷簽訂的協議或契約是否落在該群體除外規則適用的區域內,然而協議或契約的內容千變萬化,有時具有限制競爭效果的條款,既不屬「白色條款」,也不在「黑名單」之內,也就是謂的灰色地帶,此時當事人不易認定協議或契約是否已全部符合群體除外規則的條件,因此在多個群體除外規則中定有特別的「異議程序」(opposition procedure) 來解決這類問題。 歐體各會員國國內法原本均無類似制度,目前僅六會員國有群體除外規則,均是競爭法立法模式與第八十五條類似的會員國,加入歐體後模仿群體除外規則在內國法所為之規定。 過去理事會與執委會發布多項群體除外規則,不過在農業與交通業方面,由於此二產業性質特殊,在「歐洲共同體條約」內即己作不同的處理 (農業:第三十八條至第四十七條:交通業;第七十四條至第八十四條),在這兩個領域內歐體競爭法規的適用受到相當的限制。 我國公平法對於聯合行為的規範,是否應引進歐體群體除外規則,應著眼於事實上的考量。實施群體除外制度必須植基於二個前提。第一,相當的案源壓力迫使執行機關有必要整批除外,無力進行個案審查;第二,有充分的個案執行經驗,足以歸納相當細緻的規範內容以供遵循。本文認為目前上述三條件尚未具足,故將歐體群體除外制度移植我國的可能性不高。然而不立即引進群體除外制度,並不表示群體除外制度沒有參考的價值。群體除外制度所代表執行機關努力釋明執法界線,進而敦促自律,同時追求效率的精神,對行政機關在競爭法的執行上,自有其可觀之處,仍有其參考價值。 |
英文摘要 | The European Community (EC), which is internationally characterized as a supranational organization, aims at establishing a Common Market where the free flow of goods, persons, service and catpital is secured in the whole community as a domestic market. Numerous measures have been taken to achieve those planned golas during the past decades. Competition policy is considered to be one of the effective instruments for the success of the European integration. In the judgment of the European Court of Justice for Consten - Gumdig v. Commission case, the court has confirmed that Community competition rules are designed to pursue the fulfillment of the European integration. Aritcle 85 of the Treaty of Estab1ishing the European Community (EC Treaty) is the principle clause for the regulation of agreements, decisions or concerted practices which may restrict or distort competition within the Common Market. Under the general prohibition of Art. 85(1), any agreement or decision causing deterioration in competition so as to be incompatible with Art. 85(1) is automatically void (Art. 85 (2)). However, agreements or decisions prohibited by Art. 85(1) amy be exempted by the Commission of the European Community (the Commission) only if they satisfy with all those positive and negative condititons set forth in the Art. 85(3). The Commission is the authority with the sole power to grant an exemption under Art. 85(3). Consequently, and overwhelming burden of requests from enterprises in all 15 Member States for certifying negative clearance or granting an exemption is unbearable for the Commission. Several ways have been developed to solve the difficulty faced by the Commission, including issuance of comfort letter, adoption of block exemption (group exemption) or decentralization of the enforcement of the EC competition rules. The Commission may exempt a class of similar restrictive agreements whose procompetitive benefits are considered to outweigh their anticompetitive detriments under a so-called ’block exemption’ regulation. Such regulations automatically exempt agreements of the relevant type from the application of Art. 85(1) if they do not exceed the limits provided in the regulation. Block exemption is deemed to be the most effective measure to ease the Commission’s heavy administrative load. block exemption regulations share a generally common formation. They consist of preamble, white clauses, black-listed c1auses,and miscellaneous provisions. Preamble illustrates the fundamental ideas for adoption of the regulation in question, and then several articles describe the relevant type of agreements or concerted practices which is to be exempted. While white clauses provide some specific restrictive practices permitted by the regulation, the black-listed clauses contain a list of articles indicating that the existence of such clause make the block exemption regulation in question inapplicable. Both the white and black-listed clauses enable the partiesto an agreement to decide whether their practices fall within the permission area of a specific block exemption or not. Sometimes articles contained in an agreement are not so clear to decide if they are able to be characterized as either ’white’ or ’black’ clauses, a few block exemption regulations have adopted ’opposition procedure’ to settle the possible disputes. There have been several block exemptions issued by the Commission applicable for different categories of agreements to date. Only six EC Member States have adopted the similar legislation in their national law. There are two factual elements for the assessment of incorporating block exemption legislation into ROC’s Fair Trade Law: (1) the administrative burden caused by the application for individual exemption is so heavy that he block exemption seems necessary; (2) experiences gained from granting individual exemption is so sufficient that the conclusion for white and black-1isted clauses is possible. Those two requirements seem to have not been satisfactorily met. although block exemption is not so urgent a legislation for our national law, the spirits implied by block exemption system, namely, providing guidance about the agency’s enforcement intentions with respect to specified condeucts, encouraging enterprises in self-discipline and pursuing efficiency in administration, etc., are of high value for reference for our anti-trust law enfrocemnt authority. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。