軸輻協議的違法性辨析

反壟斷法大體維持橫向協議適用本身違法、縱向協議適用合理原則的分類執法原則，但近期幾個同時涉及橫向競爭者與縱向經營者的案件引發了實務界法律適用的困難。為此，有學者主張應當在《反壟斷法》中引入軸輻協定規則，以適應我國反壟斷實踐需要。但目前學界所提出的軸輻協議的定義及構成要件存在諸多不嚴謹之處，與已經類型化的壟斷行為甚至合法行為存在嚴重交叉。基於反壟斷法的立法目的及國外的相關實踐，軸輻協定雖然同時涉及橫向協定與縱向協定，但從競爭效果出發應當將其視為橫向協議；但與當然違法的橫向壟斷協定相比，軸輻協定的構成應當包含兩個額外要件：一為橫向競爭者之間的合謀，一為縱向經營者積極促進橫向合謀的形成。

The Anti-monopoly Law in principle maintains that horizontal agreements are per se illegal while vertical agreements are evaluated under rule of reason. However, a number of recent cases simultaneously involving both horizontal competitors and vertical operator(s)demonstrate the limit of this principle. Hence some scholars have submitted to introduce the hub and spoke conspiracy in order to fill such a gap. The definition and conditions of hub and spoke conspiracy proposed by the academia nonetheless entail some cracks, and are thus overlapped with categorized conduct and even legal conduct. Based on the study on the legislative objective of the Anti-monopoly Law and the relevant international practice, the hub and spoke conspiracy, though superficially embracing vertical agreements, should be viewed essentially as horizontal agreement. Moreover, the hub and spoke conspiracy differs from orthodox horizontal agreements in two key factors, conspiracy between horizontal competitors and active participation of vertical operator(s).