本文選題：私人反壟斷訴訟 + 反壟斷損害規(guī)則�。� 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：反壟斷損害是私人反壟斷訴訟中至關(guān)重要的存在，任何原告要提起反壟斷訴訟必然是因?yàn)槠錂?quán)益遭受了損害，而是否存在反壟斷損害是辨別其所受損失是否在反壟斷法保護(hù)的范圍之內(nèi)，也是區(qū)別其能否提起反壟斷訴訟的關(guān)鍵之一。反壟斷損害自美國在判例中出現(xiàn)之后就一直是美國私人反壟斷訴訟中的焦點(diǎn)，幾乎每個(gè)反壟斷訴訟都會出現(xiàn)反壟斷損害的相關(guān)問題。美國提出反壟斷損害是在私人訴訟非常發(fā)達(dá)時(shí)期最高法院將其作為一種審慎限制原告資格寫進(jìn)判決中的，之后被很多國家借鑒用以辨別原告資格，反壟斷損害規(guī)則的提出對反壟斷法的實(shí)施具有重要作用，雖然我國反壟斷法明確規(guī)定了反壟斷民事訴訟，但是沒有明確規(guī)定提起反壟斷民事訴訟的原告范圍，一旦私人主體提起反壟斷民事訴訟法院首先需要解決的就是原告資格問題。我國反壟斷法自頒布以來對實(shí)施方面的問題還在摸索階段，很多制度還不是很成熟，而國外某些法域的反壟斷法實(shí)施歷史較長，就實(shí)施方面很多制度已經(jīng)比較完善了，在原告資格確立方面也積累了不少經(jīng)驗(yàn)，學(xué)習(xí)這些成熟的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，對我國反壟斷法實(shí)施制度的完善具有一定作用。 美國作為反壟斷法實(shí)施最久的國家，其私人反壟斷訴訟非常發(fā)達(dá)，在眾多私人訴訟中會有些非法競爭者利用反壟斷訴訟阻礙競爭者與其競爭或是有些遙遠(yuǎn)的受害者提起反壟斷訴訟會有讓被告承擔(dān)雙倍責(zé)任的可能等，這些反壟斷訴訟不規(guī)范使用現(xiàn)象的存在，即濫訴，是需要被禁止的，因此將反壟斷損害規(guī)則作為確定原告資格的重要規(guī)定之一。美國反壟斷損害規(guī)則主要包括三個(gè)方面的內(nèi)容：被告行為具有壟斷違法性；存在損害；原告所訴損害與被告行為之間具有因果關(guān)系。美國在適用這一規(guī)則的時(shí)候要求原告提供證據(jù)證明，確定了其資格之后才能讓法院受理案件從而進(jìn)入損害賠償程序，這樣對節(jié)省司法資源和維護(hù)市場正常競爭秩序都有積極意義。我國反壟斷法實(shí)施以來，，也存在不規(guī)范提起反壟斷民事訴訟的情況，有些并不是嚴(yán)格意義的反壟斷案件進(jìn)入反壟斷法庭進(jìn)行了審理，本文在分析我國反壟斷法實(shí)施現(xiàn)狀之后，對我國適用反壟斷損害規(guī)則的必要性進(jìn)行了分析，并從被告行為違法性、存在損害以及兩者之間具有因果關(guān)系三個(gè)方面提出了一些制度性建議。這些制度多是結(jié)合我國現(xiàn)有國情確定的，同時(shí)考慮我國處于反壟斷法實(shí)施初期，對確有反壟斷損害的原告缺乏可操作性的程序，因此也提出了一些保障原告訴訟順利進(jìn)行的具體措施。私人反壟斷訴訟中的反壟斷損害是一個(gè)復(fù)雜的問題，在具體適用中將會遇到的問題還需要進(jìn)一步探討。
[Abstract]:Anti-monopoly damage is a vital existence in private antitrust litigation. Any plaintiff who wants to file an antitrust action is bound to suffer damage to his rights and interests.Whether there is antitrust damage is to distinguish whether the loss is within the scope of the protection of anti-monopoly law, but also one of the keys to distinguish whether the antitrust action can be brought.Anti-monopoly damage has been the focus of American private antitrust litigation since it appeared in the case law. Almost every antitrust lawsuit has some problems related to antitrust damage.The United States put forward antitrust damage was written into the judgment by the Supreme Court as a kind of prudent restriction on the plaintiff's qualification in the period when private litigation was very developed. After that, it was used by many countries to identify the plaintiff's qualification.The introduction of anti-monopoly damage rules plays an important role in the implementation of anti-monopoly law. Although China's anti-monopoly law clearly stipulates anti-monopoly civil action, there is no clear definition of the scope of plaintiff to initiate anti-monopoly civil action.Once the private subject brings the antitrust civil action court, the first problem that needs to be solved is the plaintiff's qualification.Since the promulgation of the Anti-monopoly Law in China, the problems in its implementation are still in the exploratory stage, and many systems are still not very mature. However, the implementation of anti-monopoly laws in some foreign jurisdictions has a long history, and many systems have been relatively perfect in terms of implementation.Many experiences have been accumulated in the establishment of plaintiff's qualification. Learning from these mature experiences will play a certain role in perfecting the enforcement system of anti-monopoly law in China.As the country with the longest antimonopoly law in force, the United States has a very developed private antitrust lawsuit.In many private lawsuits, there are illegal competitors who use antitrust litigation to prevent competitors from competing with them, or some remote victims who have the possibility of double the liability of the defendant.The existence of non-standard use of these antitrust actions, that is, excessive action, needs to be prohibited, so antitrust damage rules are regarded as one of the important provisions to determine the plaintiff's qualification.The American antitrust damage rules mainly include three aspects: the defendant's behavior has monopoly illegality, the existence of damage and the causality between the plaintiff's action and the defendant's action.In applying this rule, the United States requires the plaintiff to provide evidence that it has established its qualifications before allowing the court to hear the case and thus enter the damages procedure.This saves the judicial resources and maintains the market normal competition order to have the positive significance.Since the implementation of anti-monopoly law in China, there have also been cases of non-standard bringing of anti-monopoly civil action. Some non-strict antitrust cases have been tried by the court of anti-monopoly law. After the analysis of the current situation of the implementation of anti-monopoly law in China, this paper analyzes the current situation of the implementation of anti-monopoly law in China.This paper analyzes the necessity of applying anti-monopoly damage rules in China, and puts forward some institutional suggestions from three aspects: the illegality of the defendant's behavior, the existence of damage and the causality between the two.Most of these systems are determined in the light of the existing conditions of our country. At the same time, it is considered that our country is in the early stage of the implementation of the anti-monopoly law, and that there is a lack of operational procedures for the plaintiffs who do have anti-monopoly damage.Therefore, it also puts forward some specific measures to ensure the smooth progress of plaintiff litigation.Anti-monopoly damage in private antitrust litigation is a complex problem, and the problems that will be encountered in its application need to be further explored.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.294;D971.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 易有祿;;《反壟斷法》第50條之司法適用與立法完善[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年03期

2 鄭鵬程;美國反壟斷法“本身違法”與“合理法則”適用范圍探討[J];河北法學(xué);2005年10期

3 黃勇;;反壟斷法上的損害賠償及其計(jì)算初論[J];中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院學(xué)報(bào);2009年04期

本文編號：1760384