English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 49287/83828 (59%)
Visitors : 7152910      Online Users : 68
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/22720


    Title: 事業以聯合行為或濫用市場地位調漲價格經處分後,要求回復原價之探討--美國反托拉斯法之分析
    Authors: 陳志民
    Contributors: 淡江大學公共行政學系
    Keywords: 聯合行為;反托拉斯法;回復原價;公平交易法;Collusion;Antitrust Law;Price Reversal;Fair Trade Law
    Date: 2002-08
    Issue Date: 2009-11-30 14:17:29 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: 臺北市:行政院公平交易委員會
    Abstract: 本文擬就事業因聯合協議或濫用市場地位不當抬高價格經處分禁止後,倘市場價格仍處於非競爭水平時, 競爭主管機關有無法理及政策考量上之依據,得要求違法事業將價格回復至勾結前之價格水平,以美國法為分析對象,為一比較法之研究。除介紹與分析相關競爭法規與法院實務對此一議題之看法外, 並將從反托拉斯法學理的觀點,思考競爭主管機關能否介入非被管制事業之價格決定過程?其可介入之程度為何?以及反托拉斯法上之
    私人訴訟制度於此一議題上所可以扮演的角色, 有何值得借鏡之處。
    n this paper, I explore the issue of whether the FTC should have theregulatory power to mandate a price reversal to the pre-violationlevel when the alleged non-competitive price resulting from collusionor the abuse of a firm's dominant market position remains intact evenafter the violators have been punished and have ended theirinappropriate competing behavior. I rely mainly on the experience fromthe United States to examine whether this issue had ever beenpresented to and decided by its enforcement agencies and courts. Basedon the conclusion from the analysis, I further consider whether theAmerican experience could be translated into our legal system tosupport or disapprove the extension of the FTC's power to set theprices for industries not subject to rate regulation. In addition,whether private antitrust litigation is capable of functioningequivalently as an alternative to price reversal in terms of the needto maintain market competition and protect consumer will also beelaborated upon in this paper.
    In this paper, I explore the issue of whether the FTC should have theregulatory power to mandate a price reversal to the pre-violationlevel when the alleged non-competitive price resulting from collusionor the abuse of a firm's dominant market position remains intact evenafter the violators have been punished and have ended theirinappropriate competing behavior. I rely mainly on the experience fromthe United States to examine whether this issue had ever beenpresented to and decided by its enforcement agencies and courts. Basedon the conclusion from the analysis, I further consider whether theAmerican experience could be translated into our legal system tosupport or disapprove the extension of the FTC's power to set theprices for industries not subject to rate regulation. In addition,whether private antitrust litigation is capable of functioningequivalently as an alternative to price reversal in terms of the needto maintain market competition and protect consumer will also beelaborated upon in this paper.
    Relation: 第九屆競爭政策與公平交易法學術研討會論文集,頁497-530
    Appears in Collections:[公共行政學系暨研究所] 會議論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML71View/Open

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback