English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 109952/140887 (78%)
Visitors : 46342400      Online Users : 652
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/142499


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/142499


    Title: 論合意證明的溝通證據—由預拌混凝土處分案談起
    Proving the Existence of an Agreement and Communication Evidence--Reviewing the TFTC`s Decision on the Pre-mixed Concrete Case
    Authors: 魏杏芳
    Wei, Hsin-fang
    Contributors: 法學院
    Keywords: 默示共謀;其他方式合意;意思聯絡;情況證據;溝通證據;經濟證據
    Tacit collusion;Other forms of agreement;Interaction of willingness;Circumstantial evidence;Communication evidence;Economic evidence
    Date: 2021-04
    Issue Date: 2022-12-01 16:23:16 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文以公平會處分 5 家預拌混凝土事業聯合漲價案出發，探討溝通證據在合意證明上的重要性。溝通證據為情況證據的一種，係指得證明參與事業曾見面或以其他方式溝通，但未能描述溝通的實質內容者。溝通證據要能直接證明涉案事業確實曾有接觸或溝通的機會。美國與歐盟都允許採用情況證據來推論合意的存在，並賦予溝通證據較高的證據價值。公平法第 14 條第 2 項的「意思聯絡」，解釋上應包含當事人間曾溝通接觸的客觀行為要素，並應以溝通證據加以證明。依同法第 14 條第 3 項的立法技術，應係「合意得推定之」的規定，而不是「合意已推定」，故主管機關尚難直接援引該條項，導出推定合意的結論。即使第 14 條第 3 項意在減輕公平會舉證責任的負擔，但實質也同時提高被處分事業合理說明的空間；臺北高等行政法院對預拌混凝土案的判決，撤銷公平會的原處分，正反映了此一現象。過去公平會及法院並未在決定中特別考慮或凸顯溝通證據，故溝通證據在合意推定的作用如何，實務見解並不明確。溝通證據亦是數位經濟時代影響執法正確性的重要因素。美國 Spencer Meyer v. Uber Technologies Inc.案的仲裁判斷，認為 Uber 與其駕駛之間，並未形成所謂「軸輻式共謀」，理由就在於欠缺溝通證據，難以證明為數甚夥的駕駛人曾經見面、溝通，故水平共謀不成立。無論在傳統產業或在科技領域，就聯合行為的查處，溝通證據均有其重要性。公平會宜建立明確的溝通證據意識，在個案調查與論述中重視溝通證據的建構，有助於提升法院對公平會合意推定的認同。
    By reviewing the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission’s (TFTC) decision on the five pre-mixed concrete operators’ collusive behavior, this paper focuses on analyzing the values and necessity of communication evidence for the establishment of collusion. Being classified as one type of circumstantial evidence, communication evidence is that which can prove that the accused operators met or otherwise communicated, but does not describe the substance of their communication. After reviewing the competition law enforcement practices in the U.S. and the EU, it is confirmed that circumstantial evidence can be used to infer the existence of an agreement, especially on the occasion of there being concerted practices where there is a lack of direct evidence. Among the categories of circumstantial evidence, communication evidence is credited with a higher probative value. In the 2015 amendment to Taiwan’s Fair Trade Act, paragraph 3 of Article 14 allows the competition agency to implement the presumption of an agreement, but this does not necessarily mean that an agreement has been presumed to exist by law under certain conditions. The TFTC did not provide any communication evidence in the pre-mix concrete case decision to consolidate the inference that the accused companies had made contact or communicated with each other previously. Even though paragraph 3 of Article 14 has the effect of leveling down the TFTC’s burden of proof on the existence of an agreement, it also broadens the room for the accused companies to justify their behavior. The subsequent revocation of the TFTC’s decision on the pre-mixed concrete case by the Taipei High Administrative Court actually supported this argument. However, up to the present time, the importance and priority of communication evidence has not yet been envisaged in Taiwan. The blooming of e-commerce highlights the importance of communication evidence in dealing with illegal collusion in the digital era. In the arbitration award related to the Spencer Meyer v. Uber Technologies Inc. case, the arbitrator rejected the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that Uber’s drivers were a diverse lot; they did not generally know each other’s names or identities and they had no contact with each other. A “hub-and-spoke” type of collusion could not be formed without a horizontal agreement between drivers. The credibility of communication evidence needs to be confirmed and should be emphasized for the establishment of collusion either in traditional industries or advanced technology sectors.
    Relation: 公平交易季刊, Vol.29, No.2, pp.109-148
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法學院] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML282View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback