反垄断法中滥用市场支配地位规制浅析

对市场支配地位进行界定,是反垄断法中禁止滥用市场支配地位制度的一项重要而复杂的工作。     

滥用市场支配地位视角下的信用评级机构责任研究——兼论不确定性立法下的兜底条文重构

信用是金融市场的基础,信用评级机构历经百年已然成为准监管机构,然而权责的严重不对称使得评级机构通过评级行为损害市场的现象屡屡发生。作为商事领域典型的自然垄断行业,侵权行为的实施者与其占据支配地位互为因果,仅通过传统侵权责任理论规则过分流于表面之发行人付费模式,却未能反映深层次的整个金融市场投资者对于信用评级的消费和依赖,而运用反垄断法的部门法工具可以较为完整地覆盖其法律责任,使之权责一致。另一方面,透过以评级行业为视角的责任研究,亦可反向构建约束滥用市场支配地位本身的不确定性的兜底条款,使得滥用市场支配地位中的模糊化立法处理既能价值有涉,亦能安定可预期,对反垄断法的研究亦有助力。     

反垄断调查剑指何方

《反垄断法》反对的是经营者滥用市场支配地位，也就是说具有市场支配地位本身并不违法，但是如果滥用了这种地位就可能违反《反垄断法》。     

核心问题二:外资并购中的垄断

<正>根据《反垄断法》的原理,反垄断法并不是反垄断地位,只是反滥用垄断地位的行为。垄断地位在《反垄断法》中称之为市场支配地位,本身并不构成违法。只有当拥有市场支配地位的企业,而且滥用这种支配地位排斥或者限制竞争,才为《反垄断法》所禁止。达能的行为是不是造成垄断很难说。     

关于对滥用市场支配地位的法律规制的文献综述

反垄断法的直接目标是规范公平竞争的市场秩序,市场地位决定着企业的竞争能力,具有市场竞争优势地位的企业具有当然的优势地位,如果优势地位的不当使用,则可能导致具有破坏市场的力量。如何认定市场支配地位、合理规制市场支配地位和制裁市场支配地位的滥用,是反垄断立法与执法中一个非常重要的问题。     

外资并购中的垄断

根据《反垄断法》的原理，反垄断法并不是反垄断地位，只是反滥用垄断地位的行为。垄断地位在《反垄断法》中称之为市场支配地位，本身并不构成违法。只有当拥有市场支配地位的企业，而且滥用这种支配地位排斥或者限制竞争，才为《反垄断法》所禁止。达能的行为是不是造成垄断很难说。[第一段]     

相对优势地位的反垄断法研究——由百度竞价排名纠纷引发的法律思考

百度竞价排名纠纷受到社会广泛关注,从实质上看,竞价排名不仅牵涉到《反垄断法》中的市场支配地位滥用问题,更是涉及相对市场优势地位理论。对交易中＂相对优势地位滥用＂的规制,在日本、德国、法国的竞争法中都有规定,而我国对这一行为控制的缺失,则容易导致市场公平交易秩序被破坏。因此,需要对《反垄断法》加以细化和补充,以弥补当前出现的立法空白。     

跨国公司在我国滥用知识产权市场支配地位的法律规制浅析

随着我国加入世界贸易组织和我国知识产权制度的发展，跨国公司利用在我国市场上占据的优势地位，滥用知识产权限制市场竞争。反垄断法的实施为规制跨国公司滥用知识产权市场支配地位提供了法律依据，但是从实践的角度看远远不够。     

滥用市场支配地位的解读

滥用市场支配地位是指具有市场支配地位的企业不正当地利用其市场支配地位,并实质性地排斥或限制竞争,损害消费者利益的行为,我国的反垄断法虽然明文规定了七种禁止具有支配地位的经营者从事滥用市场支配地位的行为,但仍然存在滥用行为主体界定不甚合理,民事、行政等法律责任规定不完善情况,必须加以规制与完善。     

《反垄断法》四大看点

看点之一:确定三大反垄断制度 <反垄断法>包括了各国<反垄断法>一般所具备的主要内容,如确定了反垄断法律制度三大支柱,即禁止垄断协议、禁止滥用市场支配地位和控制经营者集中.     

论刑罚轻缓化与刑事诉讼程序

刑罚轻缓化作为世界刑法发展的潮流,必然会对中国刑法产生深远的影响。这种轻刑化、非刑罚化、非犯罪化的趋势,使传统理论中刑事责任与民事责任的严格区分受到较大的冲击,并且也将会波及到诉讼法领域当中,使所解决实体问题不同的民事诉讼与刑事诉讼程序之间的区别被缩小。而刑事诉讼程序与民事诉讼程序被拉近的结果将是,刑事诉讼程序中会被注入具有民事诉讼特征的制度,最终会使刑事诉讼程序走向更为多元化的状态。     

中国证券犯罪的立法完善与司法对策

从犯罪学和刑法学相结合的视角对证券犯罪的成因及立法完善、司法对策等方面进行研究得知,证券犯罪的原因主要有投资者的过度投机心理、证券市场诚实信用缺失、证券监管机构监管缺失以及法律规定不具体、缺乏对应与衔接、司法机关查处与打击不力等。因此,在立法上应加强刑事立法和司法解释,增设短线交易罪、欺诈客户罪、非法承销证券罪;在司法上则应坚持严而不厉的惩治原则,加强执法监督与管理,设立内部举报人制度,加大对单位犯罪的打击力度等。     

公司法人人格否认制度在税法中的运用

《中华人民共和国公司法》确立了公司法人人格否认制度,规定当股东滥用公司控制权,利用有限责任来逃避债务时,由股东承担连带责任。本文从实践出发,论述了公司法人人格制度滥用在税收领域的表现、在税法中引入公司法人人格否认制度的必要性及可行性,并就公司法人人格否认制度在税法中的应用进行了探讨。     

对我国卡特尔民事责任问题的探讨

2007年我国出台了《反垄断法》,成为规制我国卡特尔等垄断行为的基本法律,其中第五十条规定使得卡特尔民事责任有法可依。但是单纯一个条款来规定民事责任显然势单力薄,我国立法采用了援引民法规定来解决民事损害赔偿问题,《反垄断法》在实施上必然存在与其他法律的协调。本文就卡特尔民事责任的作用、性质、承担责任的方式等方面进行思考,认为,卡特尔民事责任体现了反垄断立法上的私力救济,其实质上属于民事侵权责任,主要体现为补偿性的赔偿损失。     

Optimism and auditor liability

There is strong evidence that individuals are optimistic in the sense that they underrate the probability of a negative event occurring. This paper provides a positive theoretical analysis of how auditor optimism affects their incentives to take care under two liability rules: strict liability and a negligence rule. Under strict liability, auditors are held liable when they cause damages to investors. Under a negligence rule, auditors are held liable when they cause damages and in addition, act negligently, that is, fail to meet the standard of due care specified in legal and professional rules. I find the following results. (1) If due care is sufficiently close to the efficient level, a negligence rule distorts auditors’ incentives less than strict liability. Under strict liability, optimism makes the auditor overestimate the chances of finding material mistakes and thus induces suboptimal care. (2) If due care is too strict, the auditor will not exert due care but the same level of suboptimal care under either liability rule. (3) With increasing optimism and in the absence of punitive damages, strict liability becomes less preferable to a precise negligence rule. This statement also holds for vaguely defined standards of due care if due care is sufficiently strict or if auditor optimism is sufficiently high. (4) Punitive damages counteract suboptimal incentives generated by auditor optimism, especially under strict liability.     

Anreizwirkungen von Haftungsregeln bei nicht nachgewiesener Kausalität

This article analyses the incentives generated by liability rules for non-causal damages on the basis of a cause assumption, which can be found in the German environmental liability law. In contrast to the basic model of the economic analysis of liability rules, where strict liability and the negligence rule induce the same precaution activities for risk neutral people, both rules differ in their incentives in the case of a cause assumption. It is shown that without a possibility of exculpation for intended business there will be inefficient incentives which result in an sub-optimal social income. If there exists (like in the German law) a possibility of exculpation for intended business, a tendency for reaching the optimal precaution level can be observed. Therefore from an economic point of view the use of strict liability in combination with the German version of a cause assumption leads to an efficient result.     

我国《民法典（草案）》中附随义务体系之重构——以中、德附随义务学说溯源为视角

《民法典（草案）》合同编面临如何解释及定位附随义务的问题。基于现有立法与审判实践不一致的问题,急待厘清该义务与给付义务、债务人过错及合同外行为义务间的关系。有学者呼吁采纳德国保护义务理论,但须深入理解中、德对应学说的联系与区别。德国法上的附随义务理论脱胎于积极违约,成熟于保护义务理论,出现了义务独立化、归责标准客观化和责任性质法定化的倾向。而中国法上的附随义务为域外学说与本国立法的结合产物,存在学说概念与立法文义背离,过错原则难以统一及缔约与履约阶段责任割裂等问题。我国不妨在解释论层面抛弃附随义务概念,代以广义的未约定义务,从而构建更宽泛的契约义务,避免一刀切的归责原则以及减少契约与侵权间的二元对立。     

日本行政限制竞争行为法律规制问题研究

日本反垄断法中没有行政垄断的定义,但确有行政机关利用行政权力排除限制竞争的行为,日本的经济规制及其统制型经济模式是其行为产生的原因。日本行政限制竞争行为主要表现为行政指导的卡特尔和行政参与的串通招标投标行为。日本采用禁止私人垄断法和行政法路径对行政限制竞争行为进行规制。日本采取行政、民事、刑事责任立法来规制行政限制竞争行为。我国应坚持行政垄断规制专门立法的特设制度,借鉴日本规制行政垄断的经验,并加大对行政垄断的处罚力度。     

Legally‐Recognised Group Structures: An Exploratory Analysis

Corporate groups are the dominant vehicle for organising business activity in Australia. For accounting purposes, a corporate group is treated as a single economic entity, and for this reason empirical research largely ignores the underlying legal structures. While the basic position at law is that each company within the corporate group is a separate legal entity, we demonstrate how the regulatory interventions of tax consolidation and the deed of cross‐guarantee may interfere with this fundamental notion. Using hand‐collected observations for the S&P/ASX200, we provide unique insights into individual group composition and identify corporate groups that have achieved optimal reporting efficiencies, as envisaged by the regulator, by adopting these legally‐recognised group structures. We also identify cases that appear to exploit these regimes for more strategic reasons, which may result in legal complications when untangling the complexities of group liability. It is clear from our analysis that there is very little homogeneity in group organisation among the large Australian public companies that we study.     

Challenging the Limited Liability of Parent Companies: A Reform Agenda for Piercing the Corporate Veil

This article examines the liability of parent corporations within company groups in Australia, to determine whether the law needs to be reformed. It gives an overview of the theory behind limited liability and situations in which piercing the corporate veil is arguably justified. It then considers whether the veil should be pierced to impose liability on parent companies. It makes the case that fault should be the basis of liability, and it looks at examples of veil‐piercing laws overseas to determine whether any of them might provide an appropriate template for liability. Recent Australian initiatives are considered before making suggestions for reform.