论横向垄断协议与纵向垄断协议的区分——评上海日进电气诉松下电器等垄断纠纷案

On the Horizontal-Vertical Dichotomy of Monopolistic Agreements: Comments on the Antitrust Case Between Shanghai Rijin Electric Co.,Ltd. and. Panasonic Electronics

日进诉松下电器案对横向协议和纵向协议的区分进行了探讨,但存在值得商榷之处:以当事人是否位于同一经济层面为区分标准,没有具体到特定交易关系;将《反垄断法》第13条调整的"横向协议"局限于"品牌间横向协议",排除了对品牌内横向协议的调整;将同时具有纵向和横向因素的协议倾向于识别为纵向协议,从而采用合理原则分析。区分两类协议有助于评估垄断协议的竞争效果,但必须避免形式主义。横向协议并非一概本身违法,纵向协议也并非一概适用合理原则,应该做个案分析。由于《反垄断法》明确区分了两类协议,对涉案协议进行正确地识别,还具有确定管辖法条的程序法意义,必须谨慎地识别涉案协议的类型。

The Antitrust case between Shanghai Rijin Electric Co., Ltd. and Panasonic Electronics explores the horizontal-vertical dichotomy of monopolistic agreements, with many unfounded propositions, it classifies agreements based on economic levels at which the two parties operate, but it does not focus on the particular trading relationship involved in the case; it limits the ＂horizontal agreements＂ governed by Article 13 of Antimonopoly Law （AML） to ＂inter-brand horizontal agreements＂, precluding its governance over intra-brand horizontal agreements; and it tends to classify agreement with both horizontal and vertical elements as vertical agreements and thus subject them to rule of reason. This dichotomy facilitates evaluation of competition effects of monopolistic agreements. However, formalism must be avoided. Not all horizontal agreements are per se illegal, nor should all vertical agreements be evaluated by rule of reason; instead, all cases should be evaluated based on its particular circumstances. As AML specifically makes a clear distinction between the two types of agreement, a correct classification of the agreements in issue also helps determine the proper AML articles as legal authority.