淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-2906201217182600
中文論文名稱 歐洲聯盟對卡特爾管制行政程序之研析-兼論LCD和DRAM卡特爾案
英文論文名稱 The Analysis of the Administrative Procedure of EU Cartel Regulation - LCD and DRAM Cartels as Examples
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 歐洲研究所碩士班
系所名稱(英) Graduate Institute of European Studies
學年度 100
學期 2
出版年 101
研究生中文姓名 謝振庭
研究生英文姓名 Jen-Ting Hsieh
學號 699290036
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2012-06-13
論文頁數 154頁
口試委員 指導教授-曾秀珍
共同指導教授-苑倚曼
委員-林江峰
委員-郭秋慶
委員-曾秀珍
中文關鍵字 歐盟競爭法  卡特爾  寬恕減免方案  LCD  DRAM 
英文關鍵字 EU competition law  cartel  leniency programme  LCD  DRAM 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學區域研究
中文摘要 卡特爾(cartel)為寡占市場下產生之商業組織,其聯合壟斷價格、限制產出、瓜分市場,以消除事業間彼此競爭,進而讓消費者權利受損。除此之外,無須彼此競爭的企業更失去研發新產品之動力,為經濟效益帶來損失。為此,歐盟競爭法近年來已將卡特爾列為重點管制目標。
尤於卡特爾隱匿特性,歐盟採用寬恕減免方案(leniency programme),以卡特爾成員中第一位向歐盟執委會自陳者罰鍰全免為誘因,鼓勵企業揭發自身參與之卡特爾。除此之外,執委會希望寬恕減免方案能同和解程序(settlement procedure)一併使用,冀望卡特爾成員能積極配合,加速執委會結案。
LCD 和 DRAM 屬於高科技產業,其製造商集中於台、日、韓幾家製造商手中,屬於寡占市場。其事業為避免競爭壓力而以秘密協議之方式,聯合壟斷 LCD 及 DRAM 市場。經人為哄抬價格後的 LCD 與 DRAM 兩項產品外銷至包含歐盟在內的全球市場,因而對歐盟內部市場帶來不良影響,故適用歐盟競爭法。本文以上述兩案為例,闡述歐盟競爭法如何適用於此兩案件。
英文摘要 A cartel, which rises from the oligopolistic markets, is a business organization that fixes prices, limits outputs or shares the market in order to eliminate competition among competing undertakings to the detriment of customers. In addition, having undertakings free from competition in a given market amounts to the lack of incentives for them to innovate and the whole economy suffers at the end. In response to this negative phenomenon, the EU competition law has made regulating cartels one of its priorities in the recent decades.
Due to the secretive nature of cartels, the EU adopts the leniency programme as a mean to encourage the cartel members to whistle-blow and admit liability to the EU Commission in order to gain immunity from fines. In addition, the
Commission hopes the settlement procedure can work hand in hand with the leniency programme so as to provide incentives for cartel members to cooperate and accelerate the closing of the case.
The making of LCD and DRAM can be regarded as a high-tech industry, whose manufacturers are highly concentrated in the hands of few Taiwanese, Japanese and Korean undertakings and thus the market constitutes as an oligopolistic market. The undertakings in both industries fixed prices and limited output of the products in a secretive agreement for fear of fierce competition. The conduct triggered the application of EU competition law because the products with artificially high prices were sold into global market, including the EEA, bringing a negative impact to it. The article illustrates how the two cartel cases fit into the category of the violation of EU
competition law.
論文目次 第一章  緒論1
第一節 研究動機與的1
第二節 研究方法與途徑2
第三節 文獻評論4
第四節 研究範圍與限制12
一、 研究範圍12
二、 研究限制13
第五節 章節安排與研究架構14

第二章 卡特爾之發展與立法管制17
第一節 卡特爾之形成與發展18
一、 市場經濟四大結構18
二、 寡占市場下卡特爾之發展21
三、 卡特爾對經濟帶來的負面效應26
第二節 主管機關對卡特爾之管制態度29
一、 現今受美國影響的全球管制態度29
二、 歐洲以德國為首的管制態度演變31
第三節 小結37

第三章 歐盟競爭法下的卡特爾管制程序規範39
第一節 歐盟卡特爾相關法律規範39
一、 歐盟競爭法對卡特爾所認定之構成要件39
二、 歐盟法之法律效力44
第二節 行政與司法機關之權力與合作46
一、 執委會權限來源47
二、 會員國競爭官署及法院之角色50
第三節 歐盟卡特爾管制程序54
一、 展開偵察55
二、 和解程序62
三、 涉案事業表達立場64
四、 執委會罰則65
五、 進入司法程序67
第四節 歐盟卡特爾管制對自然人之可能影響68
一、 對自然人之基本權利保障68
二、 歐盟卡特爾管制刑事化之可能71
第五節 小結73

第四章 歐盟卡特爾管制規範之適用-LCD與DRAM卡特爾之案例分析75
第一節 LCD與DRAM產業與法律分析75
一、 涉案事業卡特爾產業分析75
二、 歐盟競爭法對LCD和DRAM卡特爾之法律效力79
第二節 LCD與DRAM案程序規範80
一、 LCD與DRAM卡特爾成員申請寬恕減免方案80
二、 執委會偵察程序81
三、 和解程序在DRAM案上之適用82
四、 執委會行政罰84
第三節 LCD與DRAM兩案對台灣產業之啟示94
一、 事前宣導與事業內部法令擬訂95
二、 實際執行96
三、 事後補救96
第四節 小結96

第五章 結論99

參考文獻102

附件一:. 2003年第1號理事會對於施行TFEU第101、102條競爭規範規規112

附件二:各會員國競爭官署152

附表目次

(表1-1) 文獻評論表5
(表2-1)囚犯兩難模型下解釋事業的定價策略23
(表2-2)囚犯兩難模型下解釋事業的產出策略24
(表4-1)LCD卡特爾在涉案其間售入歐洲經濟區之銷售額85
(表4-2)LCD卡特爾之涉案期限及罰鍰乘數86
(表4-3)LCD案涉案事業罰鍰之總基礎額度88
(表4-4)LCD案罰鍰89
(表4-5)DRAM案涉案事業之銷售額90
(表4-6)DRAM案涉案事業之涉案年限及罰鍰乘數92
(表4-7)DRAM案涉案事業之罰鍰基礎額度93
(表4-8)DRAM案罰鍰94

附圖目次

(圖1-1)論文研究架構圖16
(圖2-1) 市場經濟四大結構19
(圖2-2)無謂損失之模型27
(圖2-3)歐盟競爭法體系37
(圖3-1)卡特爾管制程序55
參考文獻 一、 期刊論文

陳鴻垣(2007),雙佔模型探討專業電視面板的競爭,國立政治大學經營管理所
碩士論文。

Basedow J. (2007), “The Modernization of Euorpean Competition Law : A Story of
Unfinished Concept”, Texas International Law Journal, Vol. 42, pp 430-439.

Combe, E. (2006), “Quelles Sanctions contre les Cartels?”, Revue Internationale de Droit Economique, Vol. 20., pp 11-46.

Connor J. M. (2001), “Our Customers Are Our Enemies: The Lysine Cartel 1992-1995”, Review of Industrial Organizaton, Vol. 18, No.1, pp. 5-21.

Desbrosse P. (2010), “Les Programmes de Clemence a L’epreuve de la Globalisation des Marches”, Revue Internationale de Droit Economique, Vol. 24, pp. 211-240.

Harkrider J. (2009), “Lessons from the Great Depression”, Antitrust, Vol.23, No. 2, p.6-11.

Stephan, A. (2006), “The Bankruptcy Wildcard in Cartel Cases”, CCP Working Paper,No. 5, pp.511-534.

Thomas G. (2011), “A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse and structure”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 511-521.

Thorelli H. B. (1959), “Antitrust in Europe: National Policies after 1945”, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 26 pp. 222-236.

Werden G. J. and Simon J. M. (1987), “Why Price Fixers Should Go to Prison”, Antitrust Bulletin No. 32.

二、 專書論文

Allendesalazar R., M-Lage P. et al. (2007), “Oligopolies, Conscious Parallelism and Concertation”, in Claus D. Ehlermann and Isabela Atanasiu (eds.), European Competition Law Annual 2006: Enforcement of Prohibition of Cartels, Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Boskovits K. (2010), “Modernization and Role of the National Courts”, in Ioannis Lianos and Ioannis Kokkoris (eds.), The Reform of EC Competition Law: New Challenges, The Netherland: Kluwer Law International.

D’Hespeel L. (2010), “EU”, in Samantha J Mobley and Ross Denton (eds.), Global Leniency Manual 2010, New York: OUP.

Idot L. and Lemaire C. (2010), “L’Union Europeene: Lue a la Lumiere du Droit de la Concurrence ”, in Chahira Boutayeb, Jean-Claude Masclet et al. (eds.), Melanges en l’honneur de Philippe Manin: L’Union Europeene :L’Union de Droit, l’Union des Droits, Paris: Pedone.

Marquis M., (2008) “Cartel Settlements and Commitment Decisions”, in Claus-Dieter Ehlermann and Mel Marquis (eds.), European Competition Law Annual 2008: Antitrust Settlements under EC Competition Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Mikroulea A. (2010), “Case Allocation in Antitrust and Collaboration”, in Ioannis Lianos and Ioannis Kokkoris (eds.), The Reform of EC Competition Law: New Challenges, The Netherland: Kluwer Law International.

Schaub A. (2002), “Continued Focus on Reform: Recent Developments in EC Competition Policy”, in Barry Hawk (ed.), International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law 2000, New York: Juris Publishing.

Spagnolo G. (2006), “Criminalization of Cartels and their Internal Organization”, in Katalin J. Cseres, Maarten P. Schinkel et al. (eds.), Criminalization of Competition Law Enforcement, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Wils W. (2002), “Does the Effective Enforcement of Article 81 and 82 EC Require Not Only Fines on Undertakings But Also Individual Penalties, in Particular Imprisonment?”, in Claus-Dieter Ehlermann and Isabela Atanasiu (eds.), European Competition Law Annual 2001: Effective Private Enforcement of EC Antitrust Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing.


Wils W. (2006), “Is Criminalization of EU Competition Law the Answer?”, in Katalin J. Cseres, Maarten P. Schinkel et al. (eds.), Criminalization of Competition Law Enforcement, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

三、 專書

Bennett J. (2003), Evaluation Methods in Research, USA: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Bishop S. and Walker M. (2010), The Economics of EC Competition Law: Concepts Application and Measurement, 3
rd edn., London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Chalmers D. (2010), Gareth Davies et al., European Union Law : Cases and Materials, 2nd edn., Cambridge: CUP.

Edwards C. D.(1965), Trade Regulations Oversees: The National Laws, New York: Oceana Publications.

Friedman J. (1983), Oligopoly Theory, Cambridge: CUP.

Gerber D. J. (2001), Law and Competition in the Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus, USA: OUP.

Goyder J. (2003), EC Competition Law, 4th edn., Oxford: OUP.

Harding C. and Jashua J. (2003), Regulationg Cartels in Europe: A Study of Legal Control of Corporate Delinquency, USA: OUP.

Henderson W. O. (1967), The Industrial Revolution of the Continent, 1800-1914, New Jersey: Frank Cass.

Jones A. and Sufrin B. (2010), EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 4th edn., Cambridge: CUP.

Liefmann R. (1966), Cartels, Concerns and Trusts, New York: McMaster University.

Majchrzak A. (1984), Methods for Policy Research, New York: Sage Publication.

Nourissat C. (2003), Droit Communtautaire des Affaires, Paris: Dalloz.

Rodger B. J. and MacCulloch A. (2009), Competition Law and Policy in the EC and UK, 4th edn., USA: Routledge Cavendish.

Spar D. (1994), The Cooperative Edge: The Internal Politics of International Cartels, New York: Cornell University Press.

V- Bael I. and Bellis J-F (2005), Competition Law of the European Community, 4th edn., The Hague, Kluwer Law International.

V- Neumann J. and Morgenstern O. (1944), The Theory of Games and Economics Behaviour USA: Princeton University Press.

Whish R. (2009), Competition Law, 6th edn., New York: OUP.

四、 執委會文件

Antitrust : “Commission fines six LCD panel producers 648 million for price fixing cartel”, IP/10/1685, 8 December 2010.

Antitrust : Commission fines flat glass producers 486.9 million for price fixing cartel, IP/07/1781, 28 November 2007.

Antitrust : “Commission introduces the settlement procedure for cartels- frequently asked questions”, MEMO/08/458, 30, June, 2008.

Antitrust: “Commission adopts first cartel settlement decision- questions & answers”, MEMO/10/201, 19 May 2010.

Antitrust: “Commission calls for comments on a draft legislative package to introduce settlement procedure for cartels”, IP/07/1608, 26 October 2007.

Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities, [2004] OJ C 101/03.

Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases,[2006] OJ C 298 /17.

Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases,[2002] OJ C 45/3.

Commission Notice on the conduct of settlement procedure in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Article 7 and Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases[2008] OJ

Commission Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Article 7 and Articles 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 in cartel cases,[2008] OJ C 167/1.

Commission Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States in the application of Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] [2004] OJ C 101/ 54.

Competition policy : New Notice on agreements of minor importance (de minimis Notice)”, IP/02/13, 7 January 2002.

European Commission, XXI Report on the competition policy.

Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 [2006] OJ C 210/2.

Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.

White Paper on modernisation of the rules implementing Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] [1999] OJ C132/1.

五、 衍生立法

Commission Decision 89/191/EEC relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty[1989] OJ L 74/21.

Commission Decision COM (2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 in Case COMP/39.309, LCD- Liquid Crystal Displays.

Decision de la Commission 69/240/CEE relative a une procedure au titre de l’article 85 du traite- entente internationale de quinine[1969] OJ L 19/1.

Provisional non confidential version of the Commission Decision of 19 May 2010 in Case COMP/38511, DRAMs. Regulation 1/2003/EC on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] [2003] OJ L1/1.

Regulation 17/62/EEC, First Regulation implementing Articles 81 and 82 EC [1962], OJ L 62/204.

Summary of Commission Decision of 19 May 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, Case COMP/38.511- DRAMs OJ C 180/15.

Summary of Commission Decision of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, Case COMP/39.309- LCD.

六、 歐盟法院判決

Case 100/80- 103/80 SA Musique diffusion francaise et autres v Commission [1983] ECR 1825.

Case 126/80 Salonia v Poidomani [1981] ECR 1563.

Case 155/79 AM & S Europe Ltd v Commission [1982] ECR 1575.

Case 374/87 Orkem v Commission[1989] ECR 3283.

Case 40/73 etc. Suiker Unie v Commission [1975] ECR 1663.

Case 48/69 Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v Commission [1972] ECR 619.

Case 89, 104, 114, 116 et 125-9/85 Ahlstrom Oy v Commission [1988] ECR 5193.

Case C-19/95 P San Marco v Commission [1996] ECR I-4435.

Case C-199/92 P etc. Huls AG v Commission [1999] ECR I-4287.

Case C-204/00 P. etc. Aalborg Portland A/S v Commission [2004] ECR I-123.

Case C-219/95 Ferriere Nord v Commission [1997] ECR I-865.

Case C-244/94 FFSA v Ministere de l’agriculture et de la peche [1995] ECR I-4013.

Case C-301/04 P Commission v SGL Carbon AG [2006] ECR I-5915, Opinion of Avocat General Geelhoed.

Case C-407/04 P Dalmine SpA v Commission [2007] ECR 829.

Case C-41/90 Hofner and Elser v Macrotron [1991] ECR. I-1979.

Case C-89/85 etc. A Ahlstom Oy v Commission [1994] ECR I-1307.

Case C-94/00 Roquette Frere SA v Directeur general de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la repression des fraudes [2002] ECR I 9011.

Case T- 148/89 Trefilunion SA v Commission [1995] ECR II- 1063.

Case T- 39/92 Groupement des Cartes Bancaires v Commission [1994] ECR II-49.

Case T-102/96 Gencor Ltd v Commission [1999] ECR II-753.

Case T-11/06 Romana Tabacchi v Commission [2006] ECR II- 2491.

Case T-141/94 Thyssen Stahl AG v Commission [1999] ECR II-347.

Case T-150/89 Martinelli v Commission [1995] ECR II-1165.

Case T-23/99 LR af 1998 A/S v Commission [2002] ECR II-1705.

Case T-25-104/95 Cimenteries CBR SA & Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-491.

Case T-26/02, Daiichi v Commission [2006] ECR II-497.

Case T-30/91 Solvay SA v Commission [1995] ECR II-1775.

Case T-352/94 Mo Och Domsjo AB v Commission [1998] ECR II-1996.

Case T-37/05 etc. World Wide Tobocco Espana v Commission [2011] (judgement pending).

Case T-44/00 etc. Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v Commission [2004] ECR II-2233.

Case T- 15/02 BASF v Commission [2006] ECR II- 497.

Case T-7/89 Hercules v Commission [1991] ECR II-1711.


七、 其他

“Fighting Hard Core Cartels, Recent Progress and Challenges Ahead”, (OECD, 2003).

“Fighting Hard Core Cartels: Harm, Effective Sanctions and Leniency Programmes”.(OECD Reports 2002), available at:
.

“Fighting Hard Core Cartels: Harm, Effective Sanctions and Leniency Programmes”.(OECD Reports 2002), available at:
.

“Hard Core Cartels- Harms and Effective Sanctions”, (OECD Policy Brief 2002) available at:

“Recommendation of the Council concerning Effective Action against Hard Core Cartels”, (OECD Recommendations and Best Practices, 1998), available at:
.

American Banana CO v United Fruit Co, 213 US 347, 356, 29 S.Ct 511, 512 (1909).

Anibal Zarate-Perez and Guillaume Taillandier, “La Procedure de Transaction Introduite en Droit Communautaire des Ententes,” La Revue, .

Competition Authority’s Guideline on Cartel, ch. 1, available at: .

DOJ : “Fourth Chi Mei executive agrees to plead guilty and serve jail time for participating in global LCD price-fixing conspiracy”, Press Release, 4, August, 2010; DOJ : “Sixth Samsung executive agrees to plead guilty to participating in
DRAM price-fixing cartel”, Press Release, 19, April, 2007.

ECHR, 16 April 2002, Societes Colas Est et autres v France (n. 37971/97).

ECHR, 16 November1992, Niemetz v Germany (n. 13710/88).

Jenny F. “Approche Economique et Internationale de l’Experience Francaise”, Clemence et Transaction en Matiere de Concurrence. Premieres Experiences et Interrogations de la Pratique, colloque organise le 19 janvier 2005, GDP, No.
287 a 288 (2005).

Mario Monti, “Fighting Cartels Why and How? Why Should We be Concerned with Cartels and Collusive Behaviour?” 3rd Nordic Competition Policy Conference,(Stockholm, 11-12 Sept. 2000).

Neelie Kroes, “Tackling Cartels- A Never-ending Task”, Anti-Cartel Enforcement: Criminal and Administrative Policy- Panel Session, (Brasilia, 8 Oct. 2009).

OFT, “Director disqualification orders in competition cases”, OFT Guidance Document 2010, Chapter 2.

Timberlane Lumber Co v Bank of America, 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1976).

United States v Aluminum Co of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945).
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2012-07-05公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2012-07-05起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信