شرایط ممنوعیت معاملات تبعیض‌آمیز (مطالعه تطبیقی حقوق ایالات متحده آمریکا، اتحادیه اروپا و ایران)
نوع مقاله : پژوهشی اصیل
نویسندگان
1
دانشجوی دکتری،گروه حقوق خصوصی،دانشکده حقوق،دانشگاه تربیت مدرس،تهران،ایران
2
دانشیار حقوق خصوصی،دانشکده حقوق،دانشگاه تربیت مدرس،تهران،ایران
3
استاد گروه حقوق مالکیت فکری،دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس،تهران،ایران
چکیده
معاملات تبعیض‌آمیز، قراردادهایی هستند که علی‌رغم یکسان بودن اوضاع‌واحوال، در یکی از آن‌ها تبعیضی غیرقابل‌توجیه وجود دارد. در نظام‌های حقوقی، شرایط خاصی برای ممنوعیت، لحاظ شده است. برخی از این شرایط مربوط به خود قرارداد هستند؛ مانند همسان بودن معاملات و شرط اعمال محدودیت موضوعی که تنها در آمریکا وجود دارد. برخی از این شرایط در خصوص طرفین منعقد کننده قرارداد است؛ مانند قدرت انحصاری بنگاه اقتصادی و یا وضعیت اقتصادی مسلط. برخی شرایط، شروط حقوق رقابتی هستند. شروط رقابتی شامل اخلال در رقابت و ورود آسیب رقابتی، اعمال تبعیض میان خریداران رقیب است. شرط ورود ضرر بر بازار بین ایالتی که در آمریکا آمده و ورود ضرر بر تجارت میان کشورهای عضو که در حقوق اتحادیه اروپایی پیش‌بینی شده است؛ ولی در نظام حقوقی ایران موضوعیت نداشته است. بنابراین در هر سه نظام حقوقی، شروط خاصی برای ممنوعیت بیان شده است. در آمریکا این محدودیت‌ها بیش‌تر است و اکثر معاملات قانونی تلقی می‌شوند. مهم‌ترین تفاوت میان اتحادیه اروپا و ایران نیز در این است که در اتحادیه اروپا، تنها معاملاتی ممنوع هستند که از جانب بنگاه اقتصادی در وضعیت مسلط، واقع شده باشند. این امر باید در حقوق ایران نیز مورد تأکید قرار گیرد. همچنین بر اساس ظاهر قانون ایران، شرایط ممنوعیت معاملات تبعیض‌آمیز یک‌جانبه، سخت‌گیرانه‌تر از معاملات تبعیض‌آمیز چندجانبه است. در نهایت، بر اساس بررسی شرایط ممنوعیت، مواد قانونی برای اصلاح قانون پیشنهاد شده است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
14- Border, Douglas. (2010), U.S Antitrust Law and Enforcement: A Practice Introduction, USA, Oxford University Pres.
15- Jones, Alison. Sufrin, Brenda. (2019), EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, UK, Oxford University Press.
16- Kamerling, Alexandra. Osman, Christopher. (2004). Restrictive Covenants under Common and Competition, UK, Sweet and Maxwell.
17- Klotz, Thomas. (2008). Monopoly Power: Use, Proof and Relationship to Anticompetitive Effects. US, US FTC.
18- Mann, Richard. Roberts, Barry. (2012), Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, Cengage learning, USA, Cengage Learning.
Articles:
19- Beard, T.R, Kaseman, d.L, Stern, M.L. (2008), price Discrimination and Secondary-Line Competitive Injury: The Law Versus the Economics. The Antitrust Bulletin, 53. PP. 75-93.
20- Botta, Marco. Wiedemann, Klaus. (2018), EU Competition Law Enforcement vis-à-vis Exploitative Conducts in the Data Economy Exploring the Terra Incognita. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper ,No. 18-08. PP. 1-90.
21- Dieny, E. (2006). The CFI Reaffirms the Absence of a Rule of Reason in EC Competition Law. International Business Law Journal, No. 5.
22- Downey, Alicia. (2008). An Overview of Price Discrimination Law in the United States, the Price Discrimination Committee of the ABA, Section of Antitrust Law,
23- Edwards, Matthew. (2006). Price and Prejudice: The Case Against Consumer Equality in the Information Age. Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 10, PP. 559- 596.
24- Geradin, Damien. Petit, Nicolas. (2005). Price Discrimination Under Ec Competition Law: Another Antitrust Theory in Search of Limiting Principles. The global Competition Law Center Working Papers Series No. 07/05. PP. 479- 531.
25- Gifford,. Daniel. Kudrle, Robert. (2010). The Law and Economics of Price Discrimination in Modern Economies: Time for Reconciliation?. University of California, Vol. 43. PP. 1235- 1293.
26- Hansen, Hugh. (1983). Robinson Patman Law: A Review and Analysis. Fordham Law Review. V. 51. PP. 1113- 1218.
27- Kim, Karen. (2021). Amazon Induced Price Discrimination under the Robinson Patman Act. Colombia Law School, No. 6, PP. 85-160.
28- Lundborg, Martin. (2010). Discrimination and Price Discrimination in the Telecommunications Regulation of NGA Networks, 21 European Regional ITS Conference, Copenhagen, No. 23. PP. 1-18.
29- Machlup, Fritz. (1955). Characteristics and Types of Price Discrimination. Princeton University Press. PP. 397-440.
Thesis:
30- Laulainen, Merikukka. (2018). A Comparative Analysis of EU and US Approaches to Abuse of Market Dominance- Reviewing EU Antitrust Investigations against Foreign Undertaking. Bachelor Thesis, Tallinn university of Technology.
Documents:
31- COMMISSION NOTICE Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (2004/C 101/07)(Text with EEA relevance
32- Commission Decision of 20 July 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case IV/36.888 - 1998 Football World Cup)
33- DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS COMPETITION COMMITTEE ROUNDTABLE ON "PRICE DISCRIMINATION" --Note by the United States-- 29-30 November 2016.
34- DG Competition Discussion paper on the Application of Article 82 of the Treaty to Exclusionary Abuse, 2005,
35- European Commission. Antitrust Procedures in Abuse of Dominance (Article 102 TFEU cases). Accessible: ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures-102-en-html,25.4.2018.
36- Federal Trade Commission. Guide to Antitrust Laws: Antitrust Laws. Accessible: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws, 21.1.2018.
Cases:
37- FTC v. Morton Salt, 334 U.S. 37, 49 (1948), Federal Trade Commission.
38- Case Texaco Inc, Petitioner v. Ricky HASBROUCK, dba Ricks Texaco, et al. C2048-87 (1990), US Supreme Court.
39- Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., (3d Cir. 1998), 159 F.3d129, 142. United States Court of Appeals.
40- Case McCormick and Company, Inc. C-3939. (2000), Federal Trade Commission.
41- Case Volvo Trucks North America, Inc., Petitioner v. Reeder- Simco GMC, Inc. (2000). No. 04-905, US Supreme Court.
42- J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 451 U.S. 557, 562–66, 564–65 n.4 (1981). US Supreme Court.
43- United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 424, (1945). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
44- United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission of the European Communities. 27/76, (1978), Commission of the European Communities.
45- Case Post Danmark. V European Commission. (2012). C-209/10. Commission of the European Communities.
46- Case MEO v. GDA. (2018). C-525/16, Court of Justice of the European :union:.
47- Case Intel Crop. Inc. v European Commission. (2017). C-413/14. Commission of the European Communities.
15- Jones, Alison. Sufrin, Brenda. (2019), EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, UK, Oxford University Press.
16- Kamerling, Alexandra. Osman, Christopher. (2004). Restrictive Covenants under Common and Competition, UK, Sweet and Maxwell.
17- Klotz, Thomas. (2008). Monopoly Power: Use, Proof and Relationship to Anticompetitive Effects. US, US FTC.
18- Mann, Richard. Roberts, Barry. (2012), Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, Cengage learning, USA, Cengage Learning.
Articles:
19- Beard, T.R, Kaseman, d.L, Stern, M.L. (2008), price Discrimination and Secondary-Line Competitive Injury: The Law Versus the Economics. The Antitrust Bulletin, 53. PP. 75-93.
20- Botta, Marco. Wiedemann, Klaus. (2018), EU Competition Law Enforcement vis-à-vis Exploitative Conducts in the Data Economy Exploring the Terra Incognita. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper ,No. 18-08. PP. 1-90.
21- Dieny, E. (2006). The CFI Reaffirms the Absence of a Rule of Reason in EC Competition Law. International Business Law Journal, No. 5.
22- Downey, Alicia. (2008). An Overview of Price Discrimination Law in the United States, the Price Discrimination Committee of the ABA, Section of Antitrust Law,
23- Edwards, Matthew. (2006). Price and Prejudice: The Case Against Consumer Equality in the Information Age. Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 10, PP. 559- 596.
24- Geradin, Damien. Petit, Nicolas. (2005). Price Discrimination Under Ec Competition Law: Another Antitrust Theory in Search of Limiting Principles. The global Competition Law Center Working Papers Series No. 07/05. PP. 479- 531.
25- Gifford,. Daniel. Kudrle, Robert. (2010). The Law and Economics of Price Discrimination in Modern Economies: Time for Reconciliation?. University of California, Vol. 43. PP. 1235- 1293.
26- Hansen, Hugh. (1983). Robinson Patman Law: A Review and Analysis. Fordham Law Review. V. 51. PP. 1113- 1218.
27- Kim, Karen. (2021). Amazon Induced Price Discrimination under the Robinson Patman Act. Colombia Law School, No. 6, PP. 85-160.
28- Lundborg, Martin. (2010). Discrimination and Price Discrimination in the Telecommunications Regulation of NGA Networks, 21 European Regional ITS Conference, Copenhagen, No. 23. PP. 1-18.
29- Machlup, Fritz. (1955). Characteristics and Types of Price Discrimination. Princeton University Press. PP. 397-440.
Thesis:
30- Laulainen, Merikukka. (2018). A Comparative Analysis of EU and US Approaches to Abuse of Market Dominance- Reviewing EU Antitrust Investigations against Foreign Undertaking. Bachelor Thesis, Tallinn university of Technology.
Documents:
31- COMMISSION NOTICE Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (2004/C 101/07)(Text with EEA relevance
32- Commission Decision of 20 July 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case IV/36.888 - 1998 Football World Cup)
33- DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS COMPETITION COMMITTEE ROUNDTABLE ON "PRICE DISCRIMINATION" --Note by the United States-- 29-30 November 2016.
34- DG Competition Discussion paper on the Application of Article 82 of the Treaty to Exclusionary Abuse, 2005,
35- European Commission. Antitrust Procedures in Abuse of Dominance (Article 102 TFEU cases). Accessible: ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures-102-en-html,25.4.2018.
36- Federal Trade Commission. Guide to Antitrust Laws: Antitrust Laws. Accessible: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws, 21.1.2018.
Cases:
37- FTC v. Morton Salt, 334 U.S. 37, 49 (1948), Federal Trade Commission.
38- Case Texaco Inc, Petitioner v. Ricky HASBROUCK, dba Ricks Texaco, et al. C2048-87 (1990), US Supreme Court.
39- Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., (3d Cir. 1998), 159 F.3d129, 142. United States Court of Appeals.
40- Case McCormick and Company, Inc. C-3939. (2000), Federal Trade Commission.
41- Case Volvo Trucks North America, Inc., Petitioner v. Reeder- Simco GMC, Inc. (2000). No. 04-905, US Supreme Court.
42- J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 451 U.S. 557, 562–66, 564–65 n.4 (1981). US Supreme Court.
43- United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 424, (1945). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
44- United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission of the European Communities. 27/76, (1978), Commission of the European Communities.
45- Case Post Danmark. V European Commission. (2012). C-209/10. Commission of the European Communities.
46- Case MEO v. GDA. (2018). C-525/16, Court of Justice of the European :union:.
47- Case Intel Crop. Inc. v European Commission. (2017). C-413/14. Commission of the European Communities.
