本文選題：課征金制度 + 反壟斷法�。� 參考：《中南大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：課征金制度是日本反壟斷法特有的行政責(zé)任制度。自1977年引入以來,經(jīng)過三十余年間幾次重大的修改,課征金制度已經(jīng)成為日本反壟斷法責(zé)任制度的核心,對保障日本反壟斷法的實施起到了積極的作用。課征金制度內(nèi)容框架的設(shè)置主要分為四個基本方面：課征金征收的對象行為；課征金金額的計算方法；基于寬大處理機制的減免制度；課征金的征繳程序。從課征金制度的內(nèi)容以及發(fā)展歷程來看,都是極富日本特色的。在性質(zhì)上,與其他國家的行政罰款制度不同,課征金是兼有沒收違法所得與行政罰款的雙重性質(zhì)的；相比各國反壟斷法而言,其在制度設(shè)計上較為僵化；在實施機制上,具有實施機構(gòu)唯一和程序設(shè)置高度效率的特征；從其發(fā)展來看,判例法的推動起了很大作用。 由于日本與我國的法律文化以及國情上有許多相似之處,課征金制度的優(yōu)點值得我國反壟斷法有針對性的加以借鑒。我國在反壟斷法總體的法律責(zé)任制度的選擇上,應(yīng)當(dāng)堅持“行政罰款中心主義”的做法,這不僅是世界反壟斷法的普遍做法,也是反壟斷法“慎刑”原則的要求。此外,我國應(yīng)當(dāng)立足自身國情參考課征金制度的經(jīng)驗對行政罰款制度從以下幾個方面進行完善：行政罰款的上限額度應(yīng)當(dāng)達到巨額的程度；對減免制度適用規(guī)則加以明確；適當(dāng)限制行政罰款的自由裁量權(quán)；對中小企業(yè)應(yīng)予以適當(dāng)?shù)恼疹櫋?br/>[Abstract]:The levy system is the special administrative responsibility system of Japanese anti-monopoly law. Since its introduction in 1977, the levy system has become the core of the liability system of the anti-monopoly law in Japan, and has played an active role in ensuring the implementation of the anti-monopoly law in Japan. The content frame of the levy system is mainly divided into four basic aspects: the object behavior of the levy, the calculation method of the levy amount, the relief system based on leniency mechanism, and the collection procedure of the levy. From the content and development of the levy system, it is full of Japanese characteristics. In nature, unlike the administrative penalty systems of other countries, the levy is of the dual nature of confiscation of illegal income and administrative fine; compared with the anti-monopoly laws of various countries, it is more rigid in system design; and in the implementation mechanism, It has the characteristics of only implementing institution and high efficiency of procedure setting; from its development, case law plays a great role. Since there are many similarities between Japan and China's legal culture and national conditions, the advantages of the levy system are worthy of our country's anti-monopoly law to use for reference. On the choice of the overall legal liability system of anti-monopoly law, we should adhere to the practice of "administrative penalty centralism", which is not only the universal practice of the world anti-monopoly law, but also the requirement of the principle of "careful punishment" of the anti-monopoly law. In addition, our country should base on our own national conditions to refer to the experience of levy system to perfect the administrative penalty system from the following aspects: the upper limit of administrative penalty should reach a huge degree, the applicable rules of relief system should be clear; The discretion of administrative penalty should be restricted appropriately, and appropriate care should be given to small and medium enterprises.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D931.3;DD912.29

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 鄭鵬程;敖璐;;歐共體競爭法罰款制度的特點及對中國的啟示[J];重慶大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2008年03期

2 王為農(nóng),葉通明;日本公正交易委員會:機構(gòu)、權(quán)限與特性——對日本禁止壟斷法主要實施機關(guān)的評價[J];財經(jīng)問題研究;2004年01期

3 王為農(nóng),黃芳;日本禁止壟斷法中的征繳“課征金”制度[J];財經(jīng)問題研究;2005年05期

4 玄玉寶;;簡論美國反托拉斯法私人實施及我國取向[J];研究生法學(xué);2008年05期

5 王健;;反壟斷法私人執(zhí)行的優(yōu)越性及其實現(xiàn)——兼論中國反壟斷法引入私人執(zhí)行制度的必要性和立法建議[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);2007年04期

6 李國海;;論反壟斷法中的慎刑原則——兼論我國反壟斷立法的非刑事化[J];法商研究;2006年01期

7 徐士英;反壟斷法在日本實現(xiàn)“本土化”的啟示[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);1999年04期

8 王曉曄;;德國競爭法中的卡特爾制度[J];法學(xué)家;1995年04期

9 楊建順;;日本行政執(zhí)行制度研究[J];法學(xué)家;2002年04期

10 漆多俊;中國反壟斷立法問題研究[J];法學(xué)評論;1997年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 徐士英;日本反壟斷法的理論與實踐研究[D];中南大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號：1901889