欧盟纵向限制裁判经验及启示——评HB冰淇淋公司案兼议《反垄断法》第十四条的修订

The Experience and Enlightenment of EU Judgments on Vertical Restraints--Comments on the HB ice cream company case and the revision of Article 14 of the Anti-Monopoly Law

在中国《反垄断法》实施逾十年之际,作为纵向限制经典案例的HB冰淇淋公司诉欧盟委员会案中法院的判决思路和经验可为《反垄断法》第十四条修订以及新出台的《禁止垄断协议暂行规定》等相关规则完善提供有益借鉴。在梳理事实和争诉过程,界定相关市场及评估行为实质,类型定位为单一品牌限制并考量豁免可能性,分析涵摄下纵向限制与滥用市场支配地位之竞合,观察市场封锁率经济方法具体应用之基础上,比较分析我国相关立法、执法和司法实践,提炼完善纵向限制规制的启示:应结合中国特色和时代特点拓补并深化纵向限制理论体系;宜借鉴国际经验完善相关立法,同时规制价格限制和非价格限制行为,必要时引入安全港制度或辅以有关指南阐释重点问题;注重执法和司法协调,建立系统沟通机制;同时,考察具体经济背景,结合对竞争的累积影响等因素综合分析。

China’s Anti-Monopoly Law have been implemented for more than 10 years.On this occasion,the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of HB ice cream company v.European Commission may provide a useful reference for the improvement of the relevant rules,such as the amendment of article 14 of the Anti-Monopoly Law and the newly introduced Interim Provisions on Prohibiting Monopoly Agreements.On the basis of sorting out the facts and disputes,defining the relevant market and assessing the essence of the behavior,positioning it as single-brand restriction and considering the possibility of exemption,analyzing the competition between vertical restriction and abuse of market dominance,last but not least,comparing and analyzing relevant legislation,law enforcement and judicial practice in China,the enlightenment of EU vertical restraint regulation can be refined:first,complement and deepen the vertical restraint theories in combination with Chinese characteristics and the time.Second,drawing on international experience,price restrictions and non-price restrictions both should be regulated,if necessary,a safe harbor system or supplement of Guidelines may be introduced.Third,coordinate between judicial and administrative jurisdiction,establish communicative mechanism.At the same time,adopt economic background analysis methods and analyze factors such as the cumulative impact comprehensively.