论转售价格维持反垄断规制框架的定型化  

On the Pattern Setting of Anti-monopoly Regulatory Framework for Resale Price Maintenance

作　　者：江山[1] JIANG Shan

机构地区：[1]对外经济贸易大学法学院

出　　处：《中国法律评论》2025年第2期77-93,共17页China Law Review

摘　　要：就转售价格维持的反垄断规制,在世界范围内尚未达成一致的规制框架。在中国,2007年《反垄断法》下转售价格维持规制方案的模糊化,导致行政执法与私人诉讼中出现了本身违法与合理原则的实践分流。2022年《反垄断法》确立了反竞争效果推定,部分解决了上述分歧,但新的规制结构仍不尽明了。在新起点上,建构转售价格维持的反垄断规制框架,应当明确其在分析模式上属于缩略的合理原则,厘清其不应适用安全港,框定其反竞争效果推定的内涵和法律后果,并廓清其包含的直接和间接证据抗辩框架,进而厘定其促进竞争效果与当事方的举证责任,并完善促进竞争效果与反竞争效果的权衡机制。唯有如此,方可迈向转售价格维持反垄断规制框架的定型化,并塑造市场竞争秩序的稳定预期。For the anti-monopoly regulation of resale price maintenance(RPM),no consensus on regulatory framework has been reached worldwide.In China,the ambiguity of the RPM regulation scheme under the 2007 Anti-Monopoly Law(AML)has led to practical divergence between illegal per se and rule of reason in public enforcement and private litigation.The 2022 AML partially resolves these differences by establishing a presumption of anti-competitive effects of RPM,but the new regulatory structure remains unclear.To construct the anti-monopoly regulatory framework of RPM at this new starting point,important clarifications should be made as follows:the analytical mode should be categorized as the abbreviated rule of reason,safe harbor should not be applied,the connotation and legal consequences of the presumption of anti-competitive effects should be clarified,the framework of defenses including direct and indirect evidence should be defined,the pro-competitive effect and the parties'burden of proof should be delineated,and the tradeoff mechanism between procompetitive and anti-competitive effect should be improved.Only in this way,can we set a coherent pattern of anti-monopoly regulatory framework for RPM,and shape the stable expectation of market competition order.

关 键 词：垄断协议 品牌内竞争 品牌间竞争 合理原则 

分 类 号：D922.294[政治法律—经济法学]