滥用市场支配地位规制中的正当理由抗辩研究

Study on Justification Defense in Abuse of Dominant Market Position Regulation

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者：

杨文明

归属院系：

经济法学院（生态法学院）

作者：

杨文明

导师：

邓纲

学位：

博士

语种：

中文

关键词：

正当理由抗辩;滥用市场支配地位;合理原则;权利;效率;客观必要;违法阻却;反垄断法

摘要：

“任何人垄断或企图垄断,……是严重的犯罪”。作为世界上最早的反垄断法,《谢尔曼法》祭出的刀子至今仍令人胆寒!但不必为此过度担心,因为垄断规制早已过了适用“本身违法”的年代。反垄断法的继承者并未萧规曹随,相反,一场普通法复兴运动和一场经济学引起的反托拉斯革命某种程度上埋葬了《谢尔曼法》。这是因为,人们逐渐认识到,普通法自然演进的“理性原则”在反垄断法同样适用。经济学分析引入到反垄断法,使得垄断行为规制的法律原则更为审慎、理性与宽容。因而,合理原则成为规制垄断行为的首要原则。当评价滥用市场支配地位是否违法时,也应当适用合理原则,考察行为是否存在正当理由。若存在正当理由,则阻却滥用市场支配地位违法。在实践中,正当理由事实通常由经营者以抗辩的形式提出。故而,经营者提出滥用市场支配地位具备正当理由而阻却行为违法的法律规则可称之为正当理由抗辩规则。正当理由抗辩虽在各国反垄断法都有所体现,但却并未形成一项完善的法律规则。正当理由内涵不甚清晰,且判断标准也存争议。正当理由抗辩的实施也未自如的嵌入行政和司法程序。正当理由抗辩的法律后果尚缺乏有效预测与评估。因而,本论题是建构意义的,因循法律规则证成、内容、实施以及后果的逻辑思路。围绕“为何要构建正当理由抗辩规则”、“正当理由抗辩的实体内容”、“正当理由抗辩的程序规则”以及“正当理由抗辩的法律后果”等问题实施本论题的研究。除引言和结论外,笔者将正文分为六章。第一章概述正当理由抗辩的基本问题,旨在探析正当理由抗辩的缘起,廓清正当理由抗辩的内涵,并梳理正当理由抗辩的法律渊源。正当理由抗辩的产生与滥用市场支配地位规制思想流变密不可分。从结构规制到行为规制,从本身违法到合理原则,规制思想流变为正当理由抗辩提供了空间。滥用市场支配地位规制中的公权限制与私权保障使得规制与反规制彼此均衡,正当理由抗辩就是维持这一平衡的重要规则。正当理由抗辩以“正当理由”为核心,而所谓“正当”的理由既源于自然正义、道德原则,也源于法律的命令与权威,更源于市场经济生活的经验事实和商业习惯。正当理由抗辩与豁免、适用除外不同,其符号化、结构化意义,以及学术研究的需要,要求其内涵必须严格限制。正当理由抗辩概念既具抽象性又有包容性,应当发挥其作为法律规则的形式与实质功能。正当理由抗辩在各国反垄断法都有所体现,基本可划分为“非P(正当理由),则Q(滥用市场支配地位)”或“若P,则非Q”的逻辑形式。第二章从价值论、经验论和方法论构建正当理由抗辩规则的理论基础。就价值论而言,价值多元化是正当理由抗辩的理论基础,同时正当理由抗辩也为反垄断法多元价值冲突提供协调机制。从认识论讲,正当理由抗辩规则应当坚持价值“平等”观、正义优先论和价值“辩证法”。从方法论讲,协调反垄断法领域的价值冲突应当秉持合理原则。由此构建起包含自由、公平和效率的价值体系。就经验论而言,正当理由抗辩规则的实质理性要求它以经验为基础。对竞争本质的澄析表明,完全竞争并不可靠,所谓的“垄断”很大程度上是市场经济的常态。并且在一些行业、部门,所谓“垄断”不过是经营者通行的商业习惯。制定法固然应当信仰,但是脱离经验的法律规则并不值得尊重。因而,正当理由抗辩应当尊重经验事实。就方法论而言,比例原则能够限制执法机构的自由裁量,给经营者行为提供正当性抗辩的契机。合理原则在保证经营者行为合理空间的同时,还能为经营者行为正当性证成提供路径。产业组织理论在反垄断法的引入不可避免的增强了经济分析方法的应用。第三章讨论滥用市场支配地位正当理由的认定机制,旨在为深入分析正当理由内涵提供工具。正当理由认定首先面临着概念不确定、认定主体存在冲突或者不协调、缺乏明确的认定标准和方法等问题。正当理由认定分为行政和司法模式。行政模式具备资源充分、知识充足、权力主动等优势,但也需要解决多部门执法、中立性不足以及程序缺乏制约等问题。司法模式虽然中立性较强,但知识能力较弱。因而,综合两种模式优点的准司法程序能够胜任正当理由认定。正当理由的认定原则可归结为功利原则和历史原则。功利原则以福利最大化为正当,而历史原则则以“事出有据”为正当。功利原则和历史原则进而衍生出正当理由认定的两项标准:效果标准和权利标准。效果标准就是以经营者行为效果为评价标准,判断行为合法性。因而,经营者行为如果具备积极效果,则可视为具备正当理由。权利标准则是指经营者行为是否具备权利根据,是否超越权利边界。根据案件的具体情况,正当理由的认定可分别选择逐案分析方法、一般推定与序贯决策方法。第四章分析正当理由的具体类型,旨在对正当理由内容形成全面的认识。通过整体分析正当理由的理想类型、经验类型以及规范类型,进而在此基础上可将分散的正当理由类型进行体系化构建。这一体系包括正当理由的权利类型、效率类型和客观必要类型。如果经营者在市场中的生产、交易以及竞争活动背后有相应的权利支撑,那么即便涉嫌垄断也可据此提出抗辩。而且法律本身就是以权利和义务为基础的理性建构,因此没有比权利更“正当”的抗辩理由了。正当理由的权利类型又包括知识产权、所有权和政治权利。效率作为正当理由类型既符合反垄断规范要求,又具备反垄断实践基础,问题则主要体现为对效率内涵的界定。笔者采用广义的效率概念,将正当理由的效率类型进一步划分为生产效率、配置效率和动态效率。正当理由的客观必要类型意味着从事某项行为对经营者而言是必不可少的,其着眼点在于维护市场主体的正常经营。客观必要类型又包括成本合理化、应对竞争、情势变迁以及商业模式。第五章主要解决正当理由抗辩的实施程序问题。正当理由抗辩的程序一般包括:事前申请程序,陈述、说明程序,听证程序,异议程序以及私人诉讼程序。正当理由抗辩程序公正的实现应当立足于改变执法的理念,塑造权威、独立的反垄断执法机构,应当着眼于保护垄断案件裁判者的中立性,应当加强经营者正当理由抗辩的权利救济。证据规则是正当理由抗辩保障不可或缺的程序环节。就证据来源而言,经济分析意见应当成为经营者提出正当理由抗辩的重要载体,其可采性规则应当坚持专家适格规则、可靠性规则以及相关性规则。正当理由事实的证明责任问题应当处理好以下几种关系,一是举证责任和说服责任;二是控方承担证明责任与“没有正当理由”逻辑矛盾;三是滥用市场支配地位作为行政违法行为与民事侵权行为的区别。正当理由事实的证明标准则与滥用市场支配地位案件性质、正当理由事实证据特点以及诉讼政策有关。第六章主要讨论正当理由抗辩规则的法律后果,旨在检视该规则的效果。正当理由抗辩能够降低滥用市场支配地位规制决策的错误成本。而这一效果的产生主要得益于正当理由抗辩的市场立场以及正当理由抗辩激励信息产出、制约权力滥用的机理。正当理由抗辩在滥用市场支配地位构成中属于违法阻却事由。正当理由抗辩的性质应当属于绝对抗辩,意指一旦抗辩有效,那么就会发生阻却违法的效果。但是正当理由抗辩发生阻却违法的效果还应当满足以下条件。一是经营者行为存在反竞争效果,否则正当理由抗辩没必要发生;二是经营者行为的不可替代性;三是正当理由具有超越性。正当理由抗辩也会对滥用市场支配地位的法律责任产生影响。正当理由抗辩下的法律责任应当秉持比例原则,实现“罪责相适应”。就形式而言,经营者行为具备正当理由事实,那么就应当选择较轻的责任,缺乏正当理由则科之以较重责任。法律责任内容的自由裁量也与正当理由抗辩有关,并最终合于比例原则。

学科：

经济法学

提交日期：

2018-01-11

引用参考：

杨文明. 滥用市场支配地位规制中的正当理由抗辩研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2016.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 滥用市场支配地位规制中的正当理由抗辩研究
  • dc.title
  • Study on Justification Defense in Abuse of Dominant Market Position Regulation
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • b2013030107079
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 杨文明
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 博士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2016
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 邓纲
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 正当理由抗辩;;滥用市场支配地位;;合理原则;;权利;;效率;;客观必要;;违法阻却;;反垄断法
  • dc.subject
  • Justification Defense;;Abuse of Market Dominance;;Rational Principle;;Right;;Efficiency;;Objectively Necessary;;Illegality Deterrence;;Antitrust Law
  • dc.description.abstract
  • “任何人垄断或企图垄断,……是严重的犯罪”。作为世界上最早的反垄断法,《谢尔曼法》祭出的刀子至今仍令人胆寒!但不必为此过度担心,因为垄断规制早已过了适用“本身违法”的年代。反垄断法的继承者并未萧规曹随,相反,一场普通法复兴运动和一场经济学引起的反托拉斯革命某种程度上埋葬了《谢尔曼法》。这是因为,人们逐渐认识到,普通法自然演进的“理性原则”在反垄断法同样适用。经济学分析引入到反垄断法,使得垄断行为规制的法律原则更为审慎、理性与宽容。因而,合理原则成为规制垄断行为的首要原则。当评价滥用市场支配地位是否违法时,也应当适用合理原则,考察行为是否存在正当理由。若存在正当理由,则阻却滥用市场支配地位违法。在实践中,正当理由事实通常由经营者以抗辩的形式提出。故而,经营者提出滥用市场支配地位具备正当理由而阻却行为违法的法律规则可称之为正当理由抗辩规则。正当理由抗辩虽在各国反垄断法都有所体现,但却并未形成一项完善的法律规则。正当理由内涵不甚清晰,且判断标准也存争议。正当理由抗辩的实施也未自如的嵌入行政和司法程序。正当理由抗辩的法律后果尚缺乏有效预测与评估。因而,本论题是建构意义的,因循法律规则证成、内容、实施以及后果的逻辑思路。围绕“为何要构建正当理由抗辩规则”、“正当理由抗辩的实体内容”、“正当理由抗辩的程序规则”以及“正当理由抗辩的法律后果”等问题实施本论题的研究。除引言和结论外,笔者将正文分为六章。第一章概述正当理由抗辩的基本问题,旨在探析正当理由抗辩的缘起,廓清正当理由抗辩的内涵,并梳理正当理由抗辩的法律渊源。正当理由抗辩的产生与滥用市场支配地位规制思想流变密不可分。从结构规制到行为规制,从本身违法到合理原则,规制思想流变为正当理由抗辩提供了空间。滥用市场支配地位规制中的公权限制与私权保障使得规制与反规制彼此均衡,正当理由抗辩就是维持这一平衡的重要规则。正当理由抗辩以“正当理由”为核心,而所谓“正当”的理由既源于自然正义、道德原则,也源于法律的命令与权威,更源于市场经济生活的经验事实和商业习惯。正当理由抗辩与豁免、适用除外不同,其符号化、结构化意义,以及学术研究的需要,要求其内涵必须严格限制。正当理由抗辩概念既具抽象性又有包容性,应当发挥其作为法律规则的形式与实质功能。正当理由抗辩在各国反垄断法都有所体现,基本可划分为“非P(正当理由),则Q(滥用市场支配地位)”或“若P,则非Q”的逻辑形式。第二章从价值论、经验论和方法论构建正当理由抗辩规则的理论基础。就价值论而言,价值多元化是正当理由抗辩的理论基础,同时正当理由抗辩也为反垄断法多元价值冲突提供协调机制。从认识论讲,正当理由抗辩规则应当坚持价值“平等”观、正义优先论和价值“辩证法”。从方法论讲,协调反垄断法领域的价值冲突应当秉持合理原则。由此构建起包含自由、公平和效率的价值体系。就经验论而言,正当理由抗辩规则的实质理性要求它以经验为基础。对竞争本质的澄析表明,完全竞争并不可靠,所谓的“垄断”很大程度上是市场经济的常态。并且在一些行业、部门,所谓“垄断”不过是经营者通行的商业习惯。制定法固然应当信仰,但是脱离经验的法律规则并不值得尊重。因而,正当理由抗辩应当尊重经验事实。就方法论而言,比例原则能够限制执法机构的自由裁量,给经营者行为提供正当性抗辩的契机。合理原则在保证经营者行为合理空间的同时,还能为经营者行为正当性证成提供路径。产业组织理论在反垄断法的引入不可避免的增强了经济分析方法的应用。第三章讨论滥用市场支配地位正当理由的认定机制,旨在为深入分析正当理由内涵提供工具。正当理由认定首先面临着概念不确定、认定主体存在冲突或者不协调、缺乏明确的认定标准和方法等问题。正当理由认定分为行政和司法模式。行政模式具备资源充分、知识充足、权力主动等优势,但也需要解决多部门执法、中立性不足以及程序缺乏制约等问题。司法模式虽然中立性较强,但知识能力较弱。因而,综合两种模式优点的准司法程序能够胜任正当理由认定。正当理由的认定原则可归结为功利原则和历史原则。功利原则以福利最大化为正当,而历史原则则以“事出有据”为正当。功利原则和历史原则进而衍生出正当理由认定的两项标准:效果标准和权利标准。效果标准就是以经营者行为效果为评价标准,判断行为合法性。因而,经营者行为如果具备积极效果,则可视为具备正当理由。权利标准则是指经营者行为是否具备权利根据,是否超越权利边界。根据案件的具体情况,正当理由的认定可分别选择逐案分析方法、一般推定与序贯决策方法。第四章分析正当理由的具体类型,旨在对正当理由内容形成全面的认识。通过整体分析正当理由的理想类型、经验类型以及规范类型,进而在此基础上可将分散的正当理由类型进行体系化构建。这一体系包括正当理由的权利类型、效率类型和客观必要类型。如果经营者在市场中的生产、交易以及竞争活动背后有相应的权利支撑,那么即便涉嫌垄断也可据此提出抗辩。而且法律本身就是以权利和义务为基础的理性建构,因此没有比权利更“正当”的抗辩理由了。正当理由的权利类型又包括知识产权、所有权和政治权利。效率作为正当理由类型既符合反垄断规范要求,又具备反垄断实践基础,问题则主要体现为对效率内涵的界定。笔者采用广义的效率概念,将正当理由的效率类型进一步划分为生产效率、配置效率和动态效率。正当理由的客观必要类型意味着从事某项行为对经营者而言是必不可少的,其着眼点在于维护市场主体的正常经营。客观必要类型又包括成本合理化、应对竞争、情势变迁以及商业模式。第五章主要解决正当理由抗辩的实施程序问题。正当理由抗辩的程序一般包括:事前申请程序,陈述、说明程序,听证程序,异议程序以及私人诉讼程序。正当理由抗辩程序公正的实现应当立足于改变执法的理念,塑造权威、独立的反垄断执法机构,应当着眼于保护垄断案件裁判者的中立性,应当加强经营者正当理由抗辩的权利救济。证据规则是正当理由抗辩保障不可或缺的程序环节。就证据来源而言,经济分析意见应当成为经营者提出正当理由抗辩的重要载体,其可采性规则应当坚持专家适格规则、可靠性规则以及相关性规则。正当理由事实的证明责任问题应当处理好以下几种关系,一是举证责任和说服责任;二是控方承担证明责任与“没有正当理由”逻辑矛盾;三是滥用市场支配地位作为行政违法行为与民事侵权行为的区别。正当理由事实的证明标准则与滥用市场支配地位案件性质、正当理由事实证据特点以及诉讼政策有关。第六章主要讨论正当理由抗辩规则的法律后果,旨在检视该规则的效果。正当理由抗辩能够降低滥用市场支配地位规制决策的错误成本。而这一效果的产生主要得益于正当理由抗辩的市场立场以及正当理由抗辩激励信息产出、制约权力滥用的机理。正当理由抗辩在滥用市场支配地位构成中属于违法阻却事由。正当理由抗辩的性质应当属于绝对抗辩,意指一旦抗辩有效,那么就会发生阻却违法的效果。但是正当理由抗辩发生阻却违法的效果还应当满足以下条件。一是经营者行为存在反竞争效果,否则正当理由抗辩没必要发生;二是经营者行为的不可替代性;三是正当理由具有超越性。正当理由抗辩也会对滥用市场支配地位的法律责任产生影响。正当理由抗辩下的法律责任应当秉持比例原则,实现“罪责相适应”。就形式而言,经营者行为具备正当理由事实,那么就应当选择较轻的责任,缺乏正当理由则科之以较重责任。法律责任内容的自由裁量也与正当理由抗辩有关,并最终合于比例原则。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Every person who shall monopolize,or attempt to monopolize,……shall be deemed guilty of a felony. As the first anti-monopoly law in the world, Sherman Act is still a matter of fear. But we do not need to worry too much about it, because the "per se" in antitrust regulations has passed for a long time.Antitrust Law's successor did not follow established rules, on the contrary, the Sherman Act was buried by a revival movement of common cause and a revoution of antitrust law that arised by economics. Because people come to realize that rational principle in common law also applies equally in the antitrust law. Economic analysis is introduced into the antitrust law, so that the legal principle of monopoly regulation is more prudent, rational and tolerant. Thus, the rational principle has become the primary principle in regulation of monopoly. When evaluating whether the illegal on abuse of dominant position, the rational principle also play an important role,we shuold consider whether there is justification for behavior. If there is justification, then it will negates the illegal on abuse of a dominant market position. In practice, the justifications is proposed through the form of defense. Therefore, the operator abuse of market dominance have raised legitimate reasons, unlawful behavior negates the rule of law can be called justification defense rules. Although the justification defense embodied in various countries have anti-monopoly law, but did not form a complete legal rules. Legitimate reasons not very clear connotation and criterion also deposit dispute. Justification defense nor freely embedded implementation of administrative and judicial proceedings. The legal consequences of justification defense is still a lack of effective forecasting and evaluation. Thus, this thesis is to construct meaning, follow the rule of law justification, content, implementation and consequences of logical thinking. Around the "legitimate reasons why you want to build defenses Rules," "justification defense solid content" to study this topic in the implementation of "procedural rules justification defense" and "justification defense legal consequences" and so on. Besides the introduction and conclusion, it will text is divided into six chapters.In the first chapter, I will summarize the basic problems of justification defenses, clear the connotation of justification defense, and combing legal sources of justification defense. Justification defense is inseparable with the evolution of ideological on abuse of market dominance. From the structure to regulate the behavior of regulation, from the per se to the rule of reason, the evolution of regulation ideological provided a space for justification defense. Regulation of abuse of market dominance in the protection of public rights restrictions on private rights makes regulation and anti-regulatory balancing each other, justification defense is an important rule to maintain this balance. Justification defense of "justification" as the core, the so-called "legitimate" reasons both from natural justice, moral principles, but also from the command and authority of the law, but also from the fact that the market and economic life experiences and business practices. Justification defenses and immunities applicable except different, its symbolic, structural significance, as well as from academic research needs, the need to strictly limit its meaning. Justification defense is both abstract concept but also inclusive, should play its role as the form and substance of the rule of law function. Justification defense embodied in various countries have anti-monopoly law, the basic can be classified as "non-P(justification), then Q(abuse of dominance)," or "If P, then the non-Q" logical form.In the second chapter,I will provide theoretical basis for building the rule of justification defense in value theory, empiricism and methodology. On value theory, the value of diversification is the theoretical basis of the defense of justification, justification defense while also providing coordination mechanism for the anti-monopoly law pluralistic value conflicts. From epistemology speaking, justification defense rules should insist on the value of "equality" concept, justice priority theory and value. "Dialectic." Methodology speaking, the value of coordinated anti-monopoly law in the field of conflict should uphold the rule of reason. Thus built up value system contains a free, fair and efficient. On empiricism, the justification defense substantive rationality rules require it to experience. Analysis of the competitive nature of Cheng showed that competition is not entirely reliable, so-called "monopoly" of the market economy is largely the norm. And in some industries, sectors, so-called "monopoly" is nothing but the operators accepted business practices. Although the statute should be faith, but from the experience of the rule of law is not worthy of respect. Thus, the justification defense should respect the facts of experience. On the methodology, the principle of proportionality to limit the discretion of law enforcement agencies to conduct business operators to provide an opportunity to defend the legitimacy. Reasonable principle in ensuring operators conduct a reasonable space, while also conduct legitimacy certificate for the operators to provide a path. The introduction of anti-monopoly law theory of industrial organization inevitably increases the application of economic analysis.In the third chapter,I will discuss the identification mechanism of abuse justification on market dominance, and designed to provide in-depth analysis tools justification connotation. First justification finds faces uncertain concept, finds the body there is a conflict or lack of coordination, lack of clear identification criteria and methods and other issues. Finds justification mode is divided into administrative and judicial. Administrative mode have sufficient resources, sufficient knowledge, power and other advantages of the initiative, but also need to address the multi-sectoral law enforcement, lack of neutrality as well as the lack of constraints such as lack of procedures. Although judicial neutrality strong pattern, but knowledge is weak. Thus, the advantages of the integrated two models capable of quasi-judicial procedures finds justification. Finds justification in principle can be attributed to the utilitarian principle and the principle of history. Utilitarian principle of welfare maximization justified, and history Principles by the "something out of evidence" as legitimate. Utilitarian principle and historical principles and then derive two criteria justified identified: the effect of standards and rights standards. The effect of the standard is to the operators behavioral effects of evaluation criteria to determine the behavior of legitimacy. Thus, if the behavior of the operators have a positive effect, it may be regarded with justification. Right standard refers to whether the conduct of the operators have rights under, whether beyond the right boundary. According to the specific circumstances of the case, finds justification can be selected case by case analysis methods, the general presumption and sequential decision methods.In the fourth chapter,I will analyzes the specific type of justification, intended to justify the formation of a comprehensive understanding of the content. Through a holistic approach the ideal type of justification, experience type and specification type, and then on this basis justification may be dispersed type system of Construction. This system includes justification of the right type, type efficiency and objectivity necessary type. If the operator behind the production, trade and competitive activity in the market has a corresponding right support, then even if the alleged monopoly can also defend accordingly. And the law itself is to the rights and obligations based on rational construction, so there is no more "proper" than the rights of the defense. The right type of justification also includes intellectual property rights, ownership and political rights. As justification for the type of efficiency in line with antitrust regulatory requirements, but also with antitrust practical basis, the problem is mainly reflected in the definition of efficiency connotation. I used the broad concept of efficiency, the justification for the type of efficiency are further divided into production efficiency, allocative efficiency and dynamic efficiency. Type of objective justification necessary means in terms of an act on the operators is essential, and its focus is to maintain the normal operation of market players. Objectively necessary type and include rationalization costs, deal with competition, the situation changes and business model.In the fifth chapter, I will talk about the implementation procedures on justification defenses. Justify a defense program generally include: application procedures beforehand, stating that the program, hearing procedures, opposition proceedings and private legal proceedings. Justification defense of procedural fairness should be based on the realization of the idea of changing the law, create authoritative, independent anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies, it should focus on the protection of monopoly cases the referee's neutrality, should strengthen the rights of relief operators justification defense. Rules of evidence the defense is justified to protect essential aspects of the program. On sources of evidence, the economic analysis of the views of the operators should be to justify a defense of an important carrier, it should adhere to the rules of admissibility experts eligibility rules and related rules reliability rules. Justification for the fact that the burden of proof issue should deal with the relationship between several of the following, first, the burden of proof and burden of persuasion; the second is for the prosecution to bear the burden of proof and logical contradiction "no justification"; the third is the abuse of a dominant market position as an administrative offense and difference tort. Justification for the fact that the standard of proof is with the abuse of market dominance nature of the case, the fact that the evidence warranted characteristics and litigation policies.In the sixth chapter,I will focuses on the legal consequences of justification defense rules, designed to examine the effect of the rule. Justification defenses could reduce the abuse of market dominance regulatory decision-making errors costs. This effect is generated mainly due justification defense market position and excitation information outputs justification defense mechanism abuse of power constraints. Justification defense is an offense negates the abuse of market dominance constitution. Justification defense should belong to the absolute nature of the defense, meaning that once the defense is valid, it negates the effect of the law will take place. But the justification defense negates the unlawful effects occur shall also meet the following criteria. First, the existence of anti-competitive effects operator behavior, otherwise no need to occur justification defense; the second is irreplaceable operator acts; three is justified transcendent. Justification defense will have an impact on the liability of abuse of market dominance. Legal liability under the justification defense should uphold the principle of proportionality, and "guilt adapt." On the form, the operators have justified the fact that behavior, then they should choose a lighter duty, lack of justification for the families of the heavier responsibility. Discretion is also legal responsibility for the content and justification plea and eventually bonded to the principle of proportionality.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D912.29
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2016-03-01
回到顶部