| DC 欄位 |
值 |
語言 |
| DC.contributor | 產業經濟研究所 | zh_TW |
| DC.creator | 蔡靜慧 | zh_TW |
| DC.creator | Jing-hui Tsai | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-8-1T07:39:07Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2013-8-1T07:39:07Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw:88/thesis/view_etd.asp?URN=964204024 | |
| dc.contributor.department | 產業經濟研究所 | zh_TW |
| DC.description | 國立中央大學 | zh_TW |
| DC.description | National Central University | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | 律師等專門職業人員過去始終被認為是需要被高度管制的行業，然管制卻將拘束所屬市場內的成員活動，進而造成限制競爭的結果。本文觀察發現，當產業採取公會自律管制的方式時，其對競爭所生的負面影響將更加嚴重，因公會決定本具有為保護內部成員或為滿足自身產業利益而生的疑慮，其行為目的不必然均與公共利益有關、所生效果也未必有助於整體社會或經濟利益。參考美國及歐盟等國競爭法規範經驗，業已認為律師業不再能以專門職業服務為由，主張排除競爭法的適用，除非該等行為符合國家法令規定及受積極監督等要件。
因此有關公會所採行的自律自治行為，得否排除國家競爭法令(即公平交易法)的適用，必須視其行為本身是否符合豁免的要件，即該等行為必須是否係出於其他國家法令要求並具有行使的正當性，包括其行為目的必須是為了追求公共利益、所採取的手段必須是為達到該目的所必須，以及已無其他對競爭侵害最小的手段得以達成該目的等。
本研究認為律師等專門職業內部的管制行為倘不具有排除競爭法適用的正當理由，行為又已對市場競爭產生戕害效果時，自須由競爭法主管機關介入加以導正。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Professional practice (especially the lawyers) has traditionally distinguished itself for being subject to strong regulation, characterized by containing severe restrictions on competition between professionals. This article observed that the self-regulation will make the problem worse . Because many of Bar’s activities could be viewed as anticompetitive, they may be adopt some regulation in order to protect members or industrial profits, neither public interest nor social welfare. In US and EU, the professions are in a new era with respect to their relationship with the competition law. They conclusively determined that competition law applies to the ‘professionals”, unless the activitie is in furtherance of a clearly articulated state policy and actively supervised by the state.
Thus, in determine that the self-regulation can be exempt from competition law or not. It should be consider whether the government authorized the conduct at issue, and find the justifications for those regulations. For example, they must be (1) in the pursuit of public interest objective; (2) necessary to achieve that objective; and (3) the effects restrictive of competition must not go beyond what is necessary in order to ensure the proper practice of the profession.
In sum, granting antitrust immunity must be limited only when the activities are valid and justified. If the self-regulation goes too far and unnecessarily restricts competition in the market, the Fair Trade Act shoule be applied to it. | en_US |
| DC.subject | 公平交易法 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | 律師 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | 自律管制 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | 專門職業服務 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | 豁免 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | 競爭 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | Fair Trade Act | en_US |
| DC.subject | lawyer | en_US |
| DC.subject | self-regulation | en_US |
| DC.subject | professional services | en_US |
| DC.subject | exemption | en_US |
| DC.subject | competition | en_US |
| DC.title | 律師業管理機制與公平交易法衝突之研究─從法易通案談起 | zh_TW |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | zh-TW |
| DC.title | Lawyer Self-Regulation and Antitrust in Taiwan: Lessons from FTC v. National Bar Association | en_US |
| DC.type | 博碩士論文 | zh_TW |
| DC.type | thesis | en_US |
| DC.publisher | National Central University | en_US |