论文部分内容阅读
随着反垄断执法机构对垄断协议案件查处力度的加大,主动申请宽大的经营者越来越多,但由于《反垄断法》第46条第2款对宽大制度规定得过于具有原则性,因此该条款无论是对反垄断执法机构还是对经营者而言指引性都严重不足。我国现行法律法规中宽大制度的规定存在减免处罚的范围不确定、适用条件规定不明、程序性规定缺乏三大缺陷,致使在执法实践中个案之间差异明显。美国、欧盟和日本的反垄断宽大制度规定中,垄断协议中的组织者、领导者及胁迫者被排除在适用主体之外;反垄断调查开始前和开始后均可适用宽大制度;申请人一旦提出宽大申请就应立即停止违法行为。以上三点值得我国借鉴。然而,目前国家发改委发布的《横向垄断协议案件宽大制度适用指南(征求意见稿)》有待进一步完善,应将行业协会纳入适用主体的范围,明确“占位”机制,设计更为灵活的减免罚款幅度,不应减免经营者的违法所得。
As antitrust law enforcement agencies investigate and deal with cases of monopoly agreements more and more, there are more and more operators who voluntarily apply for leniency. However, since Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Anti-Monopoly Law is too principled in respect of leniency, Therefore, the provision is not enough for the antitrust law enforcement agencies or the managers. The existing laws and regulations in the system of leniency exist the scope of the relief exemption, the applicable conditions are not specified, the lack of procedural provisions of the three major defects, resulting in significant differences in the case of law enforcement practice. Among the provisions of the antitrust leniency system in the United States, the European Union and Japan, the organizers, leaders and coercioners in the monopoly agreements are excluded from the applicable entities; the lenient system can be applied both before and after the antitrust investigation begins; Propose lenient application should immediately stop the illegal act. The above three points are worth learning from our country. However, at present, the Guidelines for the Application of the lenient system of horizontal monopoly agreements (draft for soliciting opinions) promulgated by the National Development and Reform Commission need to be further improved. The industrial associations should be included in the scope of applicable entities with a clear “placeholder” mechanism and a more flexible design Relief fines range, operators should not be exempted from illegal income.