作　　者： ;

机构地区： 佛山科学技术学院政法学院法律系

出　　处： 《佛山科学技术学院学报（社会科学版）》 2009年第4期57-62,共6页

摘　　要： "垂危企业抗辩"是国际上通行的反垄断豁免条件之一,欧盟合并规制中的"垂危企业抗辩"是通过欧盟委员会的决定和欧洲法院判决发展起来的。要想成功援引该抗辩,申请方除了证明该合并与市场竞争损害之间不存在因果关系外,还须满足三个要求。在分析因果关系时,欧盟委员会通常采用"反事实分析法",即"在没有合并或合并协议出现的情况下有可能出现的其他情形,而这些情形则是审查合并时所考虑的重要因素"。但在适用"垂危企业抗辩"时,其要求的证据标准即"必然标准"似乎偏离了ECM R暗示的一般证据标准,导致一些反常现象的发生。因此,须合理运用该原则,防止有影响的大企业滥用"垂危企业抗辩"。 ＂Failing Firm Defense＂ （FFD） is well accepted as one of the excuses for violating anti--trust laws in the world. The FFD doctrine incorporated in the European merger regulations has developed through the decisions made by the EU Commission and the case law by the European Court of Justice. To successfully refer to the defense, the notifying party has to satisfy three requirements besides proving that there isn＇t a causal link between the said merger and the damage to the market competition. In the analysis of the causation, the Commission is likely to adopt the counterfactual principle, i.e. ＂the other situations likely to happen in absence of the merger or merger agreement and these constitute the vital elements which should be taken into account while evaluating the said merger. ＂ However, the standard of proof for the application of the FFD, i.e. the ＂inevitability test＂, seems to have deviated from the general standard of proof implied by ECMR, which leads to some unusual consequences. Therefore, this defense should be applied in a reasonable way to prevent the dominant firms from abusing it.

关 键 词： 垂危企业抗辩 反事实分析 证据标准

领　　域： [政治法律]