论欧盟垄断协议规制制度的困境及其对我国的启示

• 作者： 兰磊 ¹
• 作者单位：
  1.  华东政法大学知识产权学院
• 发布时间：2024-08-13

摘要: 《反垄断法》实施六年来，执法机关和司法机关对于垄断协议规制条文的解释进行了各种尝试。有学者以欧盟实践为依据对这些尝试加以评判，甚至提出激烈的批评。但是欧盟模式存在重大的理论和实践问题。它对“限制竞争”概念作非常宽松的解释，高度依赖豁免制度，发展了庞大的集体豁免条例群；并发展了各种各样的例外，如附带限制法则、客观必要法则、微量不计等。最终导致例外吞噬了原则，概念叠床架屋、相互交错、缺乏统辖。《反垄断法》虽然借鉴了欧盟条约，但在解释上应回避欧盟的做法，避免一旦形成制度惯性再难回头的局面。强生案二审判决在这方面做出了积极有益的探索，国内学者对该案的批评缺乏依据。

Abstract: During the six years after the AML came into force, China’s antitrust authorities and courts made a lot of trials on the interpretation of AML’s provisions on monopolistic agreements. Taking EU’s practice as a benchmark, some scholars made judgments on and even bitterly criticized these trials. However, the EU approach is plagued by fundamental theoretical and practical defects. It construes the “restriction of competition” concept very broadly and heavily relies on the exception and exemption mechanisms, developing a huge cluster of block exemption regulations and various exceptions, like the ancillary restraint doctrine, the objective necessity doctrine. It ends in such problems as “the exception swallows the rule”, various concepts mixed together without clear boundaries or a uniform framework, artificially splitting the analysis process, and serious formalism. Although relevant AML provisions drew upon the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union, when interpreting them, we shall avoid following the EU approach; otherwise, we will end in a difficult situation once the institutional inertia comes into being. Judgment in the Johnson & Johnson appellate case made a conductive exploration in this respect, and some scholars’ criticism of it is unfounded.

• 来自： 兰磊
• 分类： 法学 >> 经济法学
• 稿件状态： 已在集刊发表
• 引用： PSSXiv:202408.01033 (或此版本 PSSXiv:202408.01033V1)
  DOI:10.12451/202408.01033
  CSTR:32012.36.PSSXiv.202408.01033
• 推荐引用方式： 兰磊.论欧盟垄断协议规制制度的困境及其对我国的启示.哲学社会科学预印本平台:https://zsyyb.cn/abs/202408.01033.[PSSXiv:202408.01033V1] (点此复制)