摘要
在认定滥用市场支配地位时,是否具有“正当理由”是判断行为违法与否的关键。然而,反垄断执法机关在判定“正当理由”时面临多元价值目标难以权衡、相关规则可操作性不强、执法说理不够规范等困境。比例原则的适用契合“正当理由”价值平衡的制度机理,可以为经营者相关市场行为的合法性判定提供分析框架,有助于推动“正当理由”判定实践的规范化,因此,成为解决上述困境的重要出路。适用比例原则判定“正当理由”,应遵照价值平衡、规范行权的两项前提要求,并依循目的正当性、手段适当性、行为必要性、损益比例性四个判定步骤具体展开,以科学识别各种滥用市场支配地位行为。
In determining the abuse of market dominance,the“justification”is the key to determine whether or not the conduct is illegal.However,when determining the“justification”,the antimonopoly enforcement authorities are faced with the dilemmas such as the difficulties of balancing multiple value objectives,the lack of operability of the relevant rules and the lack of standardized enforcement reasoning,etc.The application of the principle of proportionality is in line with the institutional mechanism of the value balance of“justification”.And it can provide an analytical framework for the determination of the legality of the operator's relevant market conduct and help to promote the standardization of the practice of determining“justification”,thus becoming an important solution to the above dilemmas.The application of the principle of proportionality in determining“justification”should follow the two prerequisites of value balance and regulation of the exercise of rights,and follow the four steps of determining the legitimacy of the purpose,appropriateness of the means,necessity of the act and proportionality of the benefit and loss in order to scientifically identify various abuses of market dominance.
作者
贾海玲
Jia Hailing(School of Economic Law,Southwest University of Political Science&Law,Chongqing 401120,China)
出处
《西北民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》
北大核心
2023年第4期51-63,共13页
Journal of Northwest Minzu University(Philosophy and Social Sciences)
基金
2018年国家社会科学基金重大招标项目“互联网经济的法治保障研究”(项目编号:18ZDA150)
2022年重庆市教委科学技术研究计划项目“重庆市数据交易市场培育的法律制度保障”(项目编号:KJQN202200310)
智能司法研究院学生科研创新项目“防止滥用市场支配地位的合规指引”(项目编号:ZNHG2022X01)。
关键词
《中华人民共和国反垄断法》
滥用市场支配地位
“正当理由”
比例原则
价值平衡
规范说理
the AntiMonopoly Law of the People's Republic of China
abuse of market dominance
“justification”
the principle of proportionality
value balance
normative reasoning