行政罰法第6條第3項與公平交易法之域外適用

Article 6 of Administrative Penalty Act and Its Relationships with Extraterritoriality of Fair Trade Act

國內學界及實務界普遍認為，我國公平交易法（下稱「公平法」）得基於效果原則對域外限制競爭行為適用以該法行政罰規定，本文認為該當見解漠視行政罰法第6條屬地主義規定。仿效刑法第3條與第4條制定之行政罰法第6條規定，應可比附援引刑法該等條文解釋，否定其得基於效果原則之域外適用。於此認知下，本文首先就多樣性、歧義性的「域外適用」概念，加以釐清，闡明其應有的規範內涵。之後再舉出（1）行政罰法第6條並未預定有基於效果原則之域外適用效力、（2）不能因屬行政罰而非刑罰即得擴張解釋容許其得基於效果原則為域外適用、（3）法規解釋適用應遵循「推定無域外適用」之法律解釋準則、（4）行政罰法第6條第3項之「結果」並非效果原則之「效果」、（5）內含「國際禮讓」要素的效果原則與行政罰法第6條第3項間之齟齬等5點理由，闡述我國公平法行政罰規定無法基於效果原則為域外適用。同時，並於詳細檢視公平法實務案例及公平交易委員會（下稱「公平會」）過去頒布的結合域外適用處理原則後，得知我國實務運作迄今並未有任何基於效果原則域外適用之案例。本文最後主張，應參考公平法2015年修正為迴避行政罰法第26條適用而刪除該法第38條規定之作為，於未來應參考外國法制，新增基於效果原則之域外適用規定。

Till now, Taiwan’s academic circles and Fair Trade Commission and courts generally acknowledge that the relevant administrative penalty provisions in the Fair Trade Act of Taiwan can be applied extraterritorially like other countries' competition laws. And its theoretical basis lies in the effect doctrine principally developed in U.S. Antitrust Laws. This article argues that those academic opinions , administrative decisions,and court judgements ignore the territorialism provisions of Article 6 of the Administrative Penalty Act. Article 6 of the Administrative Punishment Act, which was enacted imitating Articles 3 and 4 of the Criminal Act, should be interpreted according to the regulatory purpose and concept implanted in Articles 3 and 4 of the Criminal Act. Almost all criminal law researchers in Taiwan assert that Articles 3 and 4 of the Criminal Act were legislated with reference to the idea of territorialism, prohibiting their extraterritorial application based on the effect doctrine. Under this understanding, this article first clarifies the diverse and ambiguous concept of ''extraterritorial application'' and clarifies its proper normative connotation. Afterwards, it argues that (1) Article 6 of the Administrative Penalty Act does not prescribe the effect of extraterritorial application based on the effect doctrine;(2) the relevant provisions of Administrative Penalty Act should not be broadly interpreted to be able to be applied extraterritorially simply because it involves administrative penalty, not criminal penalty; (3) The interpretation and application of laws and regulations should follow the legal interpretation criterion of ''presumption against extraterritorial application''; (4) the“consequences”in Paragraph 3, Article 6 of the Administrative Punishment Act are not equal to“effects”in effect doctrine; and (5) international comity factors object the extraterritorial effects of Article 6 of the Administrative Punishment Act. In addition, a detailed review of the enforcement of Fair Trade Act by Fair Trade Commission and courts also shows that no case of extraterritorial application of Fair Trade Act based on the effect doctrine has ever existed since the enactment of that Act. This article finally suggests that Fair Trade Act should be amended to insert a new provision that stipulates its extraterritoriality based on effect doctrine in order to reinforce its enforcement effectiveness.