美國反托拉斯法與管制法律之交錯與適用

The Intersection of Antitrust and Regulatory Law in the United States

本文所稱「管制法律」，係指某些產業在市場進入等面向，受國家法律之高度管制，例如能源業、運輸業、電信業、金融業。若干的管制性法律規範，係為了促進產業內事業之間的競爭，或為了矯治產業內競爭不足的弊端。是以，此等競爭取向的管制法律與反托拉斯法發生重疊或競合時，應如何處理？是否因為廠商的某些行為已受到競爭取向的管制法律的高度監督，反托拉斯法應該有所退讓？本文研究了美國最高法院關於「默示豁免」原則的七個代表性判決，指出該原則的「廣泛性」及「抵觸性」二要件，並經由判決歸納的方式，自行整理出三個構成要素：（1）法律及管制機關廣泛的管制，（2）納入競爭的考量，（3）牴觸管制機關的措施。 本文繼而研究我國公平交易法第46條的二則行政法院判決，發現美國法與我國法有相當匯通的法理。我國第46條大約相當於美國法的「廣泛性」要件。我國法院將第46條之「其他法律另有規定」要件，解釋為：主管機關依法律（及法規命令）為積極、嚴格的核定及監督。此見解與美國法的第一構成要素，若合符節。將美國法第二構成要素「納入競爭的考量」，用以理解我國第46條之「不牴觸本法立法意旨」要件，更能掌握其核心意旨。

“Regulatory law” in the article refers to law of highly regulated industries, such as regulation of market entry or price regulation. These industries include energy, transportation, telecommunications, and financial industries. For some of regulatory law enacted, the purpose of which is to enhance competition among firms; for some others, the purpose is to provide remedial measures in case of lack of competition. When such competition-oriented regulation is overlapping with antitrust law, how shall antitrust authority react? Shall antitrust law be retreated or “repealed” because of the industry has been heavily subject to regulatory law of pro-competition nature? The article provides a study of seven U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding the principle of “implied immunity” and indicates that there are two components in the principle, i.e., the “pervasiveness” and “repugnancy”. The author also sets forth three elements in the principle: (1) extensive regulation by a statute and regulatory agency, (2) consideration of competition, and (3) contradiction to measures by the regulatory agency. Next, two cases of Taiwanese Administrative Court with respect to article 46 of Taiwan’s Fair Trade Act have been studied. It shows that the principle of “implied immunity” in the U.S. is similar to the rationale of the two judgments in Taiwan. The U.S. component of the “pervasiveness” is equivalent to article 46 in Taiwan. There are two elements in article 46: (1) “other laws provide relevant provisions”: Taiwanese court construed the element as exactly as the first element in the U.S. principle of “implied immunity”; (2) “do not conflict with the legislative purposes of Fair Trade Act”: the best way to understand the core of the element is to invoke “consideration of competition” - the second element in the principle of “implied immunity”.