為達成實質之單一市場目標，歐盟之整合是一個極重要的趨勢，且因荷比盧三國的領土與我國領土相當，經濟規模、經濟情況亦與我國相似，皆屬於小型但開放之經濟模式，故以此三國競爭法為經緯而深入探討，冀印證歐盟整合之趨勢，亦希其於我國公平交易法能有所助益。 本文首就歐盟競爭法之規定為探討。無疑地，在競爭法領域，歐盟競爭法實際上居於一個領導先驅，雖嚴格言之並非為一部完整統一之法典，惟其重要性不因此而抹滅。然而現今歐盟競爭法的形成，亦非一蹴可幾，必定是經過一段歷程，因此就其發展歷史大略說明。其次，在施行競爭法時，不免應提及其執行機關與職權，由機關之處理方式可進一步了解相關程序，以及適用上之優缺點。之後進入競爭法探討中極為重要之一環，即分析歐盟競爭法之規範體系，係指羅馬條約第八十五至九十四條（現為阿姆斯特丹條約第八十一至八十九條）等屬於競爭法制中普通法之規定。並因欲使論文之主旨更臻清晰，後述者儘量以上述之結構為主幹。 其次，探討荷蘭競爭法。自競爭法之立法目的與歷史沿革為始。荷蘭之競爭法制由來已久。自1995年草創荷蘭競爭法以來，歷經多次修正。嗣於1997年5月22日正式通過新荷蘭競爭法，於1998年1月1日，正式生效。再就競爭法之執行機關與職權介紹。荷蘭新競爭法設立了一個嶄新的機構，即競爭局。至於荷蘭競爭法之規範體系，包含第六條之聯合行為、第二十四條之濫用市場優勢地位皮第二十七條以下之事業結合等三部分。 再者，為比利時競爭法之探討。於比利時，競爭法為一個全新規定，因此以立法爭論為始。其次審究該國競爭法之執行機關與職權。並且，討論比利時競爭法之規範體系，第二條規定聯合行為、第三條規定禁止濫用優勢地位，事業結合則定義於第九條。惟在1999年4月及6月稍微修正1991年之競爭法，且已於1999年10月開始生生效，故就新修正之部分歸納說明之。 之後，探究盧森堡之競爭法。盧森堡乃於1970年6月17日制定限制交易行為法。再於1989年9月2日進一步對該法作技術性之條正。惟因其經濟活動乃在製造及消費商品的輸入，很少發生爭論，職故至今未再為修法。此競爭法之規範體系，實質上為一個十分簡略之規定，尤其在事業結合方面，最終乃以歐體結合規則補齊，故不屬於完備之立法。在執行機關與職權方面，於盧森堡並無一個純擔任執行機構之特殊行政體。而在瑯內國法院之適用上，則以直接引用歐體法規定之方式為之。 最終對本文之研究結果作出結論，因而乃以此三國為重點，分析其異同，強調整合之趨勢，以及對我國公平交易法之未來發展可能有的幫助。

To carry out the internal market, integration of European Union is urgent and irresistible. Now, the European rules on competition have been expanded and fine-tuned. And many national laws have been brought into harmony with those European rules. Also, Netherlands, Beligium and Luxembourg belong to the fifteen Member States of the European Union. Netherlands, Beligium, Luxemburg, and Taiwan own territories of similar square measure. Meanwhile, the economic situation in the first three countries is similar to that in Taiwan, whose pattern is open and small-scaled. Thus, based on examination of competition law in the three countries, the study aims to explore the tendency of integration of European Union and to contribute to amendment of Fair Trade Law of Taiwan. In Chapter One, the motivation, purpose and methodology of the paper are introduced. In Chapter Two, the rules of European Union's competition law are investigated. Undoubtedly, European Union's competition law takes the lead in the area of competition law. Its importance is undiminished despite the fact that it is incomplete and non-consistent. However, the legislation and administration of European Union's competition law is fundamental to a better understanding of the law and, therefore, is demonstrated here. Moreover, the execution institution and its authority have to be mentioned regarding the application of competition law in order to clarify related procedure as well as merits and disadvantages of administration of competition law. Next, this paper analyzes the normal system of European Union's competition law, i.e. from Article 85 to 94 of EC Treaty (now known as Article 81 to 89 of Treaty of Amstedam), which can be categorized into common law of competition law. Chapter Four begins from the legislation viewpoint of competition law of Beligium (the Belgian Competition Act), which is a whole-new regulation, and entered into effect on April 1, 1993. Then the execution institution and its authority are mentioned. The implementation of the Beligian Competition Act required the establishment of several new institutions. This institutional structure providing for a separation of powers, through constitutionally elegant, proves cumbersome in practice. Next, the normal system of Beligian Competition Act is brought into discussion, which is composed of concerted practices in Article 2, prohibition of abuse of dominant position in Article 3, and merger control in Article 9. Nevertheless, this study explains only the revised part of the Beligian Competition Act, which was originally established in 1991, later revised slightly in both April and June 1999 and effective in October 1999. Finally, the principles of dealing with case on competition law in Belgian national court are presented. Chapter Five explored competition law of Luxembourg. On June 17, 1970, Luxembourg passed the Act concerning restrictive trading practices (the Act), which was technologically revised on September 2, 1989. Due to the great proportion of manufacture and import of consuming good in most economic activities in Luxembourg, the Act has not caused much dispute and, as a result, has not been modified recently. In reality, the normal system of Luxembourg competition law is scaffolded without detail, especially in the aspect of merger control. It has to be supplemented with merger regulation, and, thus, is intrinsically unsound. In Luxembourg, there is no specific institution fully responsible for execution of competition law of Luxembourg. In addition, the regulations of European Union are adopted into Luxembour's national courts practice. In conclusion, this paper focuses on Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, analyzes the similarity and difference of competition law of the three countries, and emphasizes the trend of integration of European Union as well as possible aid to future development of Fair Trade Law of Taiwan.