经营者集中附加限制性条件法律制度研究

【作者】 韩伟；

【导师】 王晓晔；

【作者基本信息】 中国社会科学院研究生院 ， 经济法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 对合并交易进行反垄断审查，是世界各国反垄断执法的核心内容，附加限制性条件制度则是反垄断法中的合并控制制度的核心内容之一。合并交易可能导致的反竞争效果，很多情况下可以通过对交易附加限制性条件来避免，通过附加限制性条件可以实现市场有效竞争与企业扩大规模和实现规模经济的适度平衡。本文主要采取比较研究、案例研究、实证研究等方法，以美国、欧盟等世界主要反垄断司法辖区的立法与执法经验为基础，同时结合国际竞争网络组织（ICN）以及经济合作与发展组织（OECD）等国际组织的研究成果，对经营者集中附加限制性条件制度进行了比较全面的分析与梳理。本文的研究目的是对经营者集中附加限制性条件制度进行系统的分析，为我国反垄断立法与执法的完善提供指引。基于这一整体研究目标，本文的体系安排以附加限制性条件的行政执法为出发点，围绕着附条件执法程序而展开。文章首先分析附条件制度在合并控制制度中的定位，从而对该制度的功能在整体上有个清晰认识。在此基础上，基于限制性条件的不同类型，文章从限制性条件如何确定、如何实施，以及如何变动几个执法核心环节分别进行论述，并对附条件的国际协调进行了专章分析。文章最后基于前面的研究，对中国的立法与执法现状进行评价，并提出了完善建议。全文大致内容如下：第一章，附加限制性条件制度的定位。这一章以经营者集中附加限制性条件制度整体为分析对象，考察该制度在反垄断法律制度中的角色。本章以合并交易可能导致的反竞争效果为核心，围绕反竞争效果的认定、抗辩与救济，对合并控制的制度体系进行了梳理。通过这一体系我们可以认识到，附加限制性条件是合并控制的核心环节之一，是对交易可能导致反竞争效果进行救济的根本途径，是在维护市场有效竞争与促进企业健康发展之间进行平衡的重要法律手段。通过附加限制性条件，可以在避免市场有效竞争因合并交易而严重受损的同时，最大程度的维系企业的发展利益。第二章，限制性条件的类型。限制性条件的不同类型是附加限制性条件制度体系建构的重要因素，这一章对限制性条件的类型进行了梳理。结构性条件与行为性条件是最普遍的分类方式。结构性条件一般强调对合并企业特定资产产权的处分，行为性条件则是对合并后企业行为的约束。典型的结构性条件是剥离合并企业既存的独立业务单位，有些结构性条件则涉及剥离合并企业那些不构成独立业务单位的部分资产组合，包括剥离知识产权、剥离合并企业持有的其他企业的股份或者放弃对其他企业的特定股东权益。行为性条件的形式具有开放性，以条件实现的直接目的为基础，可以划分为“促进横向竞争的行为性条件”与“控制合并交易结果的行为性条件”。开放承诺、非歧视条款、购买承诺、防火墙条款、透明度条款、反报复条款，以及限制再雇用核心员工条款等是行为性条件的典型体现形式。第三章，限制性条件的确定。这一章就合并审查中，如何对集中交易附加特定的限制性条件进行分析。合并案件审查过程中，合并企业是提出限制性条件建议的义务人，执法部门一般基于有效性、比例性、可执行性、可监督性以及不产生新的竞争问题等标准对附条件建议进行评估，市场测试是最重要的评估方法。结构性条件一般更受执法部门的青睐，但近年美、欧等司法辖区对行为性条件的态度也日渐积极。结构性条件一般适用于横向集中，行为性条件一般适用于非横向集中，有些案件可能同时附加结构性条件与行为性条件，以便尽可能地实现市场的有效竞争。第四章，限制性条件的实施。这一章讨论了限制性条件的实施问题。如何切实保障限制性条件的落实是经营者集中附条件的关键，本章分别论述了结构性条件与行为性条件的实施保障机制。就结构性条件而言，主要的保障措施包括：控制待剥离资产的买家资格，不同的资产剥离时限要求，确保待剥离资产在过渡期内的独立，委托剥离受托人与监督受托人，以及设置替代性剥离方案。其中，定资先行与买家先行是对资产剥离提出不同时限要求的重要规则。行为性条件的实施保障主要通过委托监督受托人以及针对条件执行中的争议设置仲裁机制来实现。第五章，限制性条件的变动。为确保限制性条件的持续有效，设置合理的条件变动机制是美欧等司法辖区的普遍做法，这一章对限制性条件变动的申请、审批以及变动的具体内容进行了分析。因市场环境变化或其他因素，限制性条件在实施过程中可能无法继续实施，或者不适合继续实施。限制性条件的变动申请一般由合并企业提出。执法部门对变动申请的审查标准与确定限制性条件所适用的标准一致，侧重考察市场变化带来的影响。如有必要，执法部门会通过市场测试去评估新条件的合理性。限制性条件的变动体现为条件的终止、变更和替换。行为性条件的变动最为常见，并且形式多样。结构性条件的变动往往与剥离期限的延长相关，有时也涉及待剥离资产的变更以及最初确定的资产买家人选的变更。第六章，附加限制性条件的国际协调。随着经济全球化的深入发展，反垄断执法的国际协调日益重要。近十多年来，以美欧双边合作为代表的经营者集中附条件国际协调，已经取得了很大的进展。附条件国际协调的个案合作中，执法部门之间深入的信息交流以及积极礼让原则的适用是最重要的两条途径。而不同司法辖区执法部门的有效合作，很大程度上依赖于合并企业的配合，特别是合并企业是否愿意放弃相关敏感信息的保密要求，以及是否协调好在不同辖区申报的时间安排。第七章，中国立法、执法现状与完善建议。这一章基于前六章对限制性条件制度体系的梳理，对我国相关立法与执法现状进行了分析，指出了存在的主要问题，并提出了系统的完善建议。立法方面，目前我国已经形成了经营者集中附条件制度的一些基本规则，特别是结构性条件方面的规则相对完善，但仍存在制度体系不够健全、部分规则过于原则等问题。下一步我国应通过更为公开的立法程序，采纳更为多元的规则形式，逐步建立起完善的经营者集中附条件制度体系。我国可以进一步细化限制性条件的类型，明确限制性条件建议的程序、实体要求以及执法部门评估的标准，确定定资先行、买家先行、皇冠宝石规则，逐步探索限制性条件执行中的争议仲裁机制，并完善限制性条件变动的申请与评估制度。此外，执法部门还可以通过建立案件跟访制度、行业信息采集制度、受托人信息采集制度以及个案专家咨询制度等配套制度，间接促进经营者集中附条件制度的完善。执法方面，从目前12起附条件案件的整体情况来看，商务部执法水平的进步非常明显，部分案件中限制性条件的独特性也显示了我国执法部门的日渐自信。目前的问题是部分案件限制性条件与反竞争效果的关联度不高、限制性条件的透明度仍待提高、限制性条件实施的保障措施仍待完善、对限制性条件的变动机制重视不够、附条件案件的后续信息披露不足。下一步执法部门应扩大执法透明度；谨慎选择行为性条件，尽量避免适用“控制合并交易结果的行为性条件”；重视反竞争效果的及时、明晰告知；注重对限制性条件建议的市场测试；避免基于不构成限制性条件的承诺无条件批准交易；加强限制性条件实施的保障机制；适当把握限制性条件特定信息的保密；重视限制性条件变动机制的设置；尽量明确执法部门对限制性条件执行的后续监督职权。更多还原

【Abstract】 Merger control is one of the core elements of antitrust law enforcement. Mergerremedies are the core content of merger control. Merger remedies can preventanticompetitive effects of mergers. Through merger remedies, governments canmaintain the balance between effective competition in the market and economics ofscale in enterprises.In this paper, based on methods of comparative research, case study and empiricalresearch, the author undertakes to provide an outline of a model merger remediesregime for China, by analyzing the US and EU experience of legislation and lawenforcement, as well as research reports of international organizations such as ICNand OECD.This paper aims to provide policy proposals on the legislation and enforcementof China’s antimonopoly law, based on a systemic analysis of merger remedies inother jurisdictions. For this purpose, this paper focuses on the analysis of thelaw enforcement procedure of merger remedies,such as how to determine remedies, howto implement remedies, how to modify remedies, and how international cooperationin merger remedies is conducted. At the end of this paper, the author also conductsan analysis of legislation and practices of merger remedies in China, and providessuggestions on how to improve China’s merger remedies regime.The contents of this paper is summarized as follows:Chapter one, the role of merger remedies. In this chapter, the author analyzesthe role of merger remedies in antitrust law. The author provides a comprehensivepicture of merger control, by specifying the rules in defining an anticompetitiveeffect, the rules in pleading, and the rules in merger remedies. Merger remedies,being the core content of merger control, are the fundamental way to remedy ananticompetitive effect. They are important legal measures to maintain the balancebetween effective competition and development of enterprises. In other words,through merger remedies, governments can make competition in the market workablewhile preserving the benefits of enterprise development.Chapter two, the different types of remedies. This chapter analyzes differenttypes of remedies which are the foundation of the system of merger remedies. Structural remedies and conduct remedies are the main types of remedies. Structuralremedies normally emphasize intervention in assets ownership of enterprises, whileconduct remedies restrict the conduct of enterprises. Existing stand-alone businessunit is the most favored form of asset divestiture. Structural remedies involvedin asset divestiture such as intellectual property rights divestiture andshareholding divestiture. The form of conduct remedies varies. According to the goalof remedies, conduct remedies are divided into two types of remedies i.e.“measuresfacilitating horizontal rivalry” and “measures controlling merger outcomes”.Access commitment, non-discrimination provisions, purchasing commitment, firewallprovisions, transparency provisions, anti-retaliation provisions and restrictionson reacquisition of scarce personnel assets are typical forms of conduct remedies.Chapter three, the judging of remedies. This chapter analyzed how to determineremedies in merger cases. In the process of merger review, to propose remedies isan obligation of enterprises. Antitrust agencies appraise remedies propositionsaccording to the principles of efficiency, proportionality, executable and easy tomonitor and not raise any competition problem. The Market Test is the most importantmethod used in judging remedies proposals. In the past, antitrust agencies preferstructural remedies over conduct remedies. In recent years, U.S. and EU agenciesare changing their traditional attitude towards conduct remedies. Structuralremedies are usually used in horizontal mergers while conduct remedies are usuallyused in vertical mergers. In some cases, structural remedies and conduct remediesare used in the same case.Chapter four, the implementation of remedies. This chapter discusses the issuesin implementing remedies. How to guarantee the implementation of remedies is a keyissue, and this chapter analyzes the rules in safeguarding the implementation ofstructural remedies and conduct remedies. Quality control of the buyer and the timingof assets divestiture, preservation of the independence of the assets in the interimperiod, entrusting divestiture trustee and monitoring trustee, setting up crownjewel provisions are the rules in safeguarding the implementation of structuralremedies. Entrusting monitoring trustees and setting up arbitration mechanisms arethe rules of safeguarding the implementation of conduct remedies. Chapter five, the modification of remedies. Setting up modification mechanismsare measures often used by antitrust agencies of the U.S and EU to ensure theeffectiveness of remedies. This chapter discusses the application, review andcontents of remedy modification. Because of changing market conditions or othercauses, it is possible that remedies can not be enforced. Therefore, enterprisesoften suggest modification of remedies. The review standards applied by agenciesare the same as the standards applied in the process of determining remedies, andare mainly focused on changing market conditions. If necessary, Antitrust agenciesmay apply the market test to determine the effectiveness of modified remedies. Theforms of modification of remedies are waived, only to modify and substitute remedies.The modification of conduct remedies is most common and its form varies. In somecases, it is possible that agencies agree on extending the divestiture deadline orto change the proposed buyer.Chapter six, the international cooperation of merger remedies. With thedevelopment of economic globalization, international cooperation between antitrustagencies is increasingly important. Over the past decade, the bilateral cooperationof merger remedies such as between the U.S and EU have made great progress. In theinternational cooperation of merger remedies, different countries often exchangeinformation and positive comity. The effective cooperation of different countriesin merger remedies mainly relies on the cooperation of enterprises, especially onenterprises’ willingness to disclose confidential information and reasonablearrangement of merger notification timeframe in different countries.Chapter seven, suggestions for Chinese legislation and practices. Based on theanalysis of the institution of merger remedies, this chapter discusses the Chineselegislation and practices, analyzes the issues and provides suggestions.Although in China, there are rules on merger remedies, especially structuralremedies, the rules are still inadequate. China should formulate more rules in mergerremedies through a more open legislative process and adopt more varied forms of rules.China should further distinguish the types of remedies, and set up procedures forremedy proposals and the standards of appraisals. China should set up the rules of“up front buyer”,“fix it first”,“crown jewel” and arbitration mechanisms. China should improve the rules in the notification and review of the modifiedremedies. On the other hand, Chinese agencies can promote merger remedies by settingup rules in post-merger monitoring, rules in collecting industry information andtrustee information, and rules in expert consultation.In practice, Mofcom has made great progress in handling twelve cases with theuse of remedies showing confidences in enforcing antimonopoly law. However, issuesremain in the enforcement law of Mofcom. Specification on the relevance betweenanticompetitive effects and remedies, on the transparency of remedies, and on themodification mechanisms of remedies is required. Mofcom should provide greatertransparency of remedies and carefully select conduct remedies, especially“measures controlling merger outcome”. Mofcom should emphasize the notificationof anticompetitive effects to the enterprises in a timely manner, and emphasize themarket test of proposed remedies. Mofcom should prevent applying commitments thatare not remedies. It should strengthen the safeguard institutions remedy enforcement,maintain the confidentiality of discreet information of remedies, emphasize themodification of remedies, and clarify the power of Mofcom in monitoring theimplementation of remedies.更多还原