مطالعۀ تطبیقی معیارهای ارزیابی رفتار ضد رقابتی با تأکید بر حقوق ایران

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار، دانشکدة ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه حضرت معصومه(س)، قم، ایران

چکیده

مبانی حقوق رقابت ماهیتی اقتصادی دارند که تبیین دقیق و رفع ابهام از آن‏‏ها به کارآمدی ضوابط حقوقی خواهد انجامید. معیارهای متعددی برای تحلیل و ارزیابی رفتارهای ضد رقابتی مطرح شده است که می‏توان مهم‌ترین آن‏ها را «ممنوعیت ذاتی» و «محدودیت متناسب و منطقی» دانست. درحالی‌که طبق قاعدة «ممنوعیت ذاتی» قالب و موضوع رفتار‌ْ معیار‌ِ ممنوعیت قلمداد می‏شود، قاعدة «محدودیت متناسب و منطقی» مستلزم ارزیابی آثار رفتار و ساختار بازار مرتبط است. سایر معیارهای پذیرفته‏شده در حقوق رقابت نیز، منطبق با رویکرد خاص خود، رفتارهای ضد رقابتی را بررسی می‏کنند. در این پژوهش تلاش شد، ضمن تحلیل هر یک از معیارهای طرح‏شده در حقوق رقابت، نقاط ضعف و قوت احتمالی آن‏ها تبیین شود و با بررسی «قانون سیاست‏های کلی اصل 44 قانون اساسی» موضع حقوق ایران در ارتباط با این موضوع مشخص شود. به عنوان نتیجه می‏توان گفت پذیرش هر یک از این معیارها دارای اثر مستقیم در مفاد قوانین و چگونگی مواجهه با رفتارهای ضد رقابتی است و بر مبانی اقتصادی و اهدافی مبتنی است که نظام حقوق رقابت در پی تحقق آن است. در ایران، ابهام مبانی اقتصادی قانون‌گذار و بی‌توجهی به معیارهای مورد نظر در این زمینه از علل ناکارآمدی حقوق رقابت محسوب می‏شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative Analysis of Anti-Competition Conducts Evaluation Criteria -Emphasis on Iranian Law

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohammad Hosein Vakili Moghadam
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Hazrat-e-Masumeh University, Qom, Iran
چکیده [English]

The bases of Competition Law have economic nature that precise examination and clarification of them lead to effectiveness of legal regulations.  There are variety of criteria to analyze anti-competitive conducts. The main ones are “Per se rule” and “Rule of reason”. Under “Per se rule”, the subject of conduct is the basis of prohibition, however; “Rule of reason” requires the analysis of effects of conducts and the relevant market structure.  Other admissible criteria in Competition Law in compliance with the specific view, study the anti-competition conducts. This article aims to examine legal rules of antitrust and pros and cons associated with them and also Law on Implementation of General Policies of Principle (44) of Constitution law in order to clarify view of Iranian Law. To conclude, acceptance of any criteria has direct impact on content of laws and the way of addressing anti-completion conducts and also it roots in economic basis and objectives that Competition Law attempts to achieve.  The ambiguity of legislator’s economic bases and also overlooking the criteria in this area are the reasons of ineffectiveness of Competition Law.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Commercial monopoly
  • Economic bases of Competition
  • Anti-Competitive Agreements
  • Anti-Trust Law
1. اصغرنیا، مرتضی (1395). «نقدی بر رویة شورای رقابت در احراز رویة ضد رقابتی؛ بررسی موردی تصمیم پروندة واگذاری شرکت مخابرات ایران، رویة حقوق قضایی، د 1، ش 1، صص 77ـ 82.

2. رشوند بوکانی، مهدی (1390). حقوق رقابت در فقه امامیه، حقوق ایران، و اتحادیة اروپا، تهران، انتشارات دانشگاه امام صادق.

3. صدر، محمدباقر (1393). اقتصاد ما، قم، دار الصدر، ج 2.

4. وکیلی‏مقدم، محمدحسین (1389). توافقات ضد رقابت تجاری، تهران، میزان.

  1. Asghar-nia, Morteza (2017). consider of anticompetitive affairs in competition council of Iran; Private Law Precedent, vol.1, No, 1, pp. 77-82. (in Persian)
  2. Border, Douglas (2010). U.S Antitrust Law and Enforcements, Oxford University Press, First Published.
  3. Cavanagh, Edward (2012). The Rule of Reason Re-Examined, ST. John S School of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, No. 12-0012, pp. 435-469.
  4. Connolly, Robert (2012). per se plus: A Proposed to Revise the per se Rule in Criminal Antitrust Cases, Antitrust Journal, vol. 29, pp. 105-120.
  5. Eldridge, William (2000). The Rule of Reason in Antitrust Analysis: General Issues, Federal Judicial Center Work Paper, No. 20.
10. Federal Trade Commission (2000). Antitrust Guidelines for the Collaborations among Competitors.

11. Feller, Howard (2015). A Primer on Antitrust Law Fundamentals, National Capital Region Program, MC Guir Woods LLp.

12. Fundakowski, Daniel (2013). The Rule of Reason: From Balancing to Burden Shifting, The Civil Practice & Procedure Committee Advisory Panel Work Paper, No. 32.

13. Haddon, Jonathan (1985). Three Exceptions to the per se Rule against Boycott, Boston University Law Review, Vol. 65, pp. 165-204.

14. Hart, lee (1969). Tying Agreements, the per se Rule and Credit, Southwestern Law Review, vol. 23, pp. 907-913.

15. Hovenkamp, Herbert (2018). The Rule of Reason, Florida Law Review, Vol. 70, pp. 81-167.

16. Hylton, Keith (2003). Antitrust law, Economic Theory & Common Law Evolution, Cambridge University Press, First Published.

17. Joliet, Rene (1970). The Rule of Reason in Antitrust Law, Springer Publishing, First Published.

18. Kavacic, William (2017). Identifying Anticompetitive Agreements in the United Satates and European Union: Developing a Coherent Antitrust Analytical Framework, GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Work Papers, No. 2017, 5.

19. Kimmel, Sheldon (2011). How and Why the per se Rule against Price Fixing Went Wrong, Economic Law Review, vol. 19, pp. 245- 270.

20. Krnjak, Sanjana (2012). per se Versus Rule of Reason: Economic Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Predatory Pricings, Antitrust Law Journal, vol. 14, pp. 37-52.

21. Meras Ca, David (2012). The Importation of the Rule of Reason in European Competition Law, Villanova Law Review, Vol. 80, pp. 50-87.

22. Nealis, Peter (2000). per se Legality: a New Standard in Antitrust Adjudication under the Rule of Reason, Ohio State Law Journal. Vol. 61, pp. 347-398.

23. Peyton, Troy (2013). The per se Rule and the Rule of Reason after In Re Michigan Medical Society, The Journal of Corporation Law, vol,9, pp. 595-609.

24. Pierce, Michael (2014). The Value of a per se Rule against Enforcing non-Competition Agreements, Business & Bankruptcy Law Journal, vol. 2:1, pp. 39-81.

25. Piraino, Thomas (1991). Reconciling the per se and Rule of Reason Approaches to Antitrust Analysis, Sothern California Law Review, vol. 64, pp. 685-739.

26. Rashvand, Mahdi (2012). the law of competition in Islamic jurisprudence, the law of Iran and European Community, Tehran: Imam Sadegh University Press, First Published. (in Persian).

27. Sadr, Mohammad bagher (2015). Our Economy, Tehran: Dar-o-al-Sadr Publication, First Published. (in Persian).

28. Sokol Daniel & Blair Roger (2012). The Rule of Reason and the Goals of Antitrust: An Economic Approach, Antitrust Law Journal, vol. 78, pp. 471-504.

29. Sokol, Daniel (2014). The Transformation of Vertical Restraints: per se Illegality, The Rule of Reason and per se Legality, Antitrust Law Journal, vol. 79, pp. 1003-1016.

30. Stuke, Mauric (2009). Does the Rule of Reason Violate the Rule of Law,‏‏ UC Davis Law Review, vol. 42, pp. 1375-1409.

31. Vakili-Moghadam, Mohammad-Hosein (2011). Anti-competitive Agreements, Tehran: Mizan Publication, First Published. (in Persian)

32. Waelbroeck, Denis (2005). A per se Rule against Rebates by Dominant Companies, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, vol. 149 (1), pp. 149-171.

33. Yadwad, Chaitra (2015). Tule of Reason and per se Illegal, International Journal of Legal Insight, vol. 1, Issue 2, pp. 202- 220.

Yingvoragon, Pakorn (2015). A European Rule of Reason in Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EuRopean Union, Antitrust Law Journal, vol. 23, pp. 4