The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law

The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law

Elgar original reference

Edited by Albert A. Foer and Jonathan W. Cuneo

With the international community on the brink of an explosion of private remedies for violation of national competition laws, this timely Handbook provides state-of-the-art analysis of the private enforcement of competition laws across the globe. Private enforcement of antitrust is becoming a significant component of competition policy laws worldwide; today, more than a hundred jurisdictions have adopted market regimes operating within a framework of competition law, providing a varied base for developing ways by which persons injured by anticompetitive conduct will (or will not) be able to obtain remedies.

Chapter 36: Taiwan

Lawrence S. Liu and Frank S. Chang

Subjects: law - academic, competition and antitrust law, law -professional, competition and antitrust law

Extract

Lawrence S. Liu1 and Frank S. Chang2 Introduction Taiwan’s Fair Trade Law (FTL) of 1992, as amended, is highly influenced by EU- and German-style competition legislation. The two salient components of the FTL are antitrust law and unfair competition law. The FTL’s legislative goals are ‘maintaining trade order, protecting consumers’ interests, ensuring fair competition, and promoting economic stability and prosperity’.3 To this end, the enforcement mechanism of FTL imposes civil liability, criminal sanctions and administrative enforcement. 1. How does a damages action case get started? Damages actions under Taiwan’s FTL are relatively rare, because the legislative focus is administrative enforcement by Taiwan’s Fair Trade Commission (TFTC). In the view of some commentators, a damages suit may result from business disputes, such as termination of a dealership. It may also result from large-scale consumer complaints. There is a very small ‘antitrust bar’, if one exists at all. This is because most lawyers treat FTL cases as part of their existing corporate, intellectual property or litigation practice. Also, there is no US-style opt-out class action mechanism, nor is a civil jury or discovery allowed in Taiwan. In light of these limitations, an attorney may have limited incentive to indentify and seek to represent parties injured by anticompetitive acts. In addition, a lawyer cannot solicit clients by using methods which are against public policy, morals, or lawyers’ respect and credibility, as prescribed by the Norm of Lawyers’ Ethics.4 As far as an antitrust claim is concerned, there is no requirement to pursue a...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information