論壟斷協議參與者的可救濟性

The Remediability of the Participant of Monopoly Agreement

壟斷協議參與者遭受損失能否獲得救濟，現行法尚未對此作出明確規定。司法實踐中，有法院以參與者存在過錯為由拒絕提供救濟，也有法院作出截然相反的裁判。“同案不同判”不僅會造成司法體系的內部衝突，而且會損害壟斷協議違法性要件的一致性和穩定性。鑒於壟斷協議內部博弈的存在、整體競爭秩序的維護、壟斷協議的隱蔽性等因素，應當深入考察壟斷協議具體的內部形態及反壟斷立法目的，避免“一刀切”式地否認參與者的可救濟性。對此，應採取更具針對性的分類救濟措施，具體包括引入“重大責任”及“累積性競爭效果損害”兩項標準。

The current law has not made clear whether the participants of monopoly agreement can obtain judicial relief for their losses. In judicial practice, some courts refuse to provide judicial relief on the grounds of participants’ fault, and some courts make the opposite judgment results. “The same case with different judgments” will not only cause internal conflicts in the judicial system, but also damage the consistency and stability of the illegality requirements of the monopoly agreement. In view of the existence of internal gaming, the maintenance of overall competitive order, and the crypticity of monopoly agreement and so on, we should probe deeply into the internal forms of monopoly agreement and the antitrust legislative intent, in order to avoid arbitrarily denying the remediability of the participant of monopoly agreement. Facing the dilemma, we should focus on the antitrust practice, inducing the “ significant responsibility” standard and considering the “cumulative competition effect damage” standard, thus part of the participant of monopoly agreement can be remedied by classified relief.