论《反垄断法》的解释及适用范围 美国跨密苏里案及其启示

On the Construction and Scope of Application of Antimonopoly Law——Enlightenment of United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n (1897)

尽管我国《反垄断法》立法框架与欧盟更为近似,但其制定、解释和实施仍受到美国经验的深刻影响。在进行域外经验借鉴时,往往仅注重规则的简单趋同,而忽视制度发展阶段的匹配性和制度预设市场前提的差异性。跨密苏里案(1897)是《谢尔曼法》颁布后的早期案例之一。该案中,联邦最高法院就《谢尔曼法》的适用范围和解释进行了首次激烈争锋。虽然时隔100余年,但由于我国正处于《反垄断法》实施初期,处于案件的相似阶段,该案对我国《反垄断法》实施具有重要的启示意义:在《反垄断法》的解释中,应特别注意文义解释与历史解释的合理运用;在界定《反垄断法》与行业管制法的关系时,应明确整体上二者相互补充,并行不悖;当存在具体法条竞合时,应适用特别法优于一般法的规则。

Though China's legislation profile is more similar to EU's, the formulation, construction and implementation of Antimonopoly Lawof China was profoundly influenced by American experience. When referring to overseas experience, our law-making authority often simply looks at similarity of regulations and neglects the difference of the compatibility of regulation development status and premise market condition for regulations. Missouri case is one of the earliest cases after the implementation of Sherman Act. In this case, US Supreme Court held intense arguments against the explanation and application of Sherman Act. Although the case happened 100 years ago, it still has significant enlightenment on application of Antimonopoly Law in China because China is in the beginning stage of Antimonopoly Law application which is similar to the period when the case happed. It is especially important to notice reasonable utilization of literal explanation and historical explanation when explaining Antitrust Law. Regarding the relationship between Antitrust Law and Industry Regulating Law, they are complementing each other but not against. When conflicts appear on actual statutes, rule of special law preceding general law needs to be applied.