本文選題：歐盟競爭法 + 行政性限制競爭行為　； 參考：《湖南大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國《反壟斷法》明確規(guī)定了行政性限制競爭行為是其規(guī)制對象，并從種類、認(rèn)定方式、法律責(zé)任等幾方面對該種行為做出規(guī)定。行政性限制競爭行為不是中國獨有的現(xiàn)象，歐盟作為一個準(zhǔn)聯(lián)邦制國家，行政性限制競爭行為是其競爭法中的重要內(nèi)容。歐盟行政性限制競爭行為制度經(jīng)過幾十年的發(fā)展，已日臻完善。在中歐兩地區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì)文化等各方面密切聯(lián)系的背景下，對中歐兩地區(qū)行政性限制競爭行為立法進(jìn)行比較研究具有現(xiàn)實意義和理論意義。通過介紹歐盟行政性限制競爭行為立法，我們可以對歐盟行政性限制競爭行為制度有一個全面的認(rèn)識，對完善我國行政性限制競爭行為制度提供借鑒。從指令、條例和《歐盟運行條約》等著手，對歐盟行政性限制競爭行為制度展開分析，歐盟行政性限制競爭行為主要包括三個部分：限制但不禁止成員國實施行政性限制競爭行為;禁止成員國對國有企業(yè)或享有特權(quán)專有權(quán)企業(yè)采取違背條約競爭規(guī)則措施;監(jiān)督控制成員國實施的國家援助。在比較分析中歐行政性限制競爭行為制度時，首先對中歐行政性限制競爭行為的概念、認(rèn)定與豁免標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、執(zhí)法機構(gòu)、法律責(zé)任、救濟(jì)途徑以及與產(chǎn)業(yè)政策的關(guān)系進(jìn)行闡述，然后從概念、認(rèn)定與豁免標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、執(zhí)法機構(gòu)等6個方面比較中歐行政性限制競爭行為異同。兩地區(qū)行政性限制競爭行為立法的差異主要是由兩地區(qū)政治制度、經(jīng)濟(jì)體制以及立法價值等因素導(dǎo)致的。通過比較分析中歐行政性限制競爭行為立法規(guī)制的異同，我們可以對我國規(guī)制行政性限制競爭行為的立法提出完善建議，主要包括明確行政性限制競爭行為主體責(zé)任、完善抽象行政性限制競爭行為審查機制、構(gòu)建一個獨立權(quán)威的反壟斷執(zhí)法機構(gòu)和建立行政性限制競爭行為立法優(yōu)先的價值取向。
[Abstract]:The Anti-monopoly Law of our country clearly stipulates that the administrative restriction of competition is the object of its regulation, and makes regulations on this kind of behavior from the aspects of category, way of identification, legal liability and so on.Administrative restrictive competition is not a unique phenomenon in China. As a quasi-federal country, administrative restrictive competition is an important part of EU competition law.After decades of development, the EU administrative restrictive competition behavior system has been improving.Under the background of the close relationship between the economic and cultural aspects of the two regions in China and Europe, it is of practical and theoretical significance to make a comparative study on the legislation of administrative restrictive competition behavior in the two regions of China and Europe.By introducing the EU's administrative restrictive competition behavior legislation, we can have a comprehensive understanding of the EU's administrative restrictive competition behavior system and provide a reference for perfecting our country's administrative restrictive competition behavior system.From the perspective of directives, regulations, and the "EU operational Treaty", and so on, an analysis of the EU's system of administrative restrictive competition conduct is carried out.The administrative restrictive competition behavior of EU mainly includes three parts: restricting but not prohibiting member states from carrying out administrative restrictive competition behavior, prohibiting member States from taking measures against state-owned enterprises or enterprises with privileged exclusive rights to violate the rules of competition under treaties;To supervise and control the implementation of state aid by member states.In the comparative analysis of the administrative restrictive competition behavior system in China and Europe, the concept, identification and exemption standards, law enforcement agencies, legal liability, relief channels and the relationship with industrial policy of the administrative restrictive competition behavior of China and Europe are first expounded.Then it compares the similarities and differences of administrative restrictive competition behavior between China and Europe from six aspects: concept, recognition and exemption standard, law enforcement agencies and so on.The differences in the legislation of administrative restrictive competition behavior between the two regions are mainly caused by the political system, economic system and legislative value of the two regions.By comparing and analyzing the similarities and differences of the legislative regulation of administrative restrictive competition behavior in China and Europe, we can put forward some perfect suggestions on the regulation of administrative restrictive competition behavior in our country, mainly including clarifying the responsibility of the subject of administrative restrictive competition behavior.We should perfect the examination mechanism of abstract administrative restrictive competition behavior, construct an independent and authoritative anti-monopoly enforcement agency and establish the value orientation of the priority of administrative restrictive competition behavior legislation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.294;D95

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 李小明;;論反壟斷法理論體系之構(gòu)建[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年03期

2 江飛濤;李曉萍;;直接干預(yù)市場與限制競爭:中國產(chǎn)業(yè)政策的取向與根本缺陷[J];中國工業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì);2010年09期

3 林碧蘭;;行政性公司和公用企業(yè)的行政壟斷主體地位探討[J];經(jīng)營管理者;2009年24期

4 孔少飛;;歐盟的國家援助制度及其借鑒[J];歐洲研究;2006年03期

5 吳中南;國家干預(yù)與經(jīng)濟(jì)自由——兼論弗萊堡學(xué)派的理論與政策[J];社會科學(xué);2004年02期

6 戴龍;;日本反壟斷法實施中的競爭政策和產(chǎn)業(yè)政策[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2009年03期

，

本文編號：1747830