本文選題：經(jīng)營者承諾 + 利害關(guān)系人�。� 參考：《南京大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：經(jīng)營者承諾制度是指反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)與涉嫌壟斷的經(jīng)營者在調(diào)查中協(xié)商一致,由經(jīng)營者承諾停止涉嫌壟斷的行為并消除行為后果,執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)中止調(diào)查的制度。作為現(xiàn)代反壟斷公共執(zhí)法中的一種重要形式,其因具有節(jié)約行政資源、提高執(zhí)法效率等優(yōu)點(diǎn)而受到世界各國的青睞。我國《反壟斷法》在借鑒歐盟承諾決定制度的基礎(chǔ)上確立了經(jīng)營者承諾制度。但就我國現(xiàn)有的法律法規(guī)而言,經(jīng)營者承諾制度僅規(guī)定了執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)和壟斷經(jīng)營者的權(quán)利義務(wù),未將利害關(guān)系人合法權(quán)益的保護(hù)納入到承諾制度的調(diào)整范疇中。在反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)作出中止調(diào)查決定的過程中,尚未設(shè)立完善的利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保護(hù)機(jī)制。2016年2月2日,國家發(fā)改委新制定的《反壟斷案件經(jīng)營者承諾指南》(征求意見稿)雖在一定程度上彌補(bǔ)了我國對利害關(guān)系人參與權(quán)的立法不足,但在實(shí)踐操作中仍具有局限性。本文通過采用案例分析、價值分析以及比較研究的方法,將視角聚焦于經(jīng)營者承諾制度中利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障的問題上。在肯定該制度價值功能的基礎(chǔ)上分析了利害關(guān)系人在承諾制度適用過程中應(yīng)當(dāng)享有的程序性權(quán)利,探討了我國經(jīng)營者承諾制度在利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障上不足的原因以及存在的問題,并結(jié)合境外國家或地區(qū)在該制度利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障方面的類似經(jīng)驗(yàn),對完善我國經(jīng)營者承諾制度提出了建議。本文主體內(nèi)容分為四個部分展開。第一部分是關(guān)于我國經(jīng)營者承諾制度的執(zhí)法現(xiàn)狀與問題提出。本部分開門見山,以“中國電信、聯(lián)通壟斷案”為引,分析并總結(jié)了我國關(guān)于經(jīng)營者承諾制度的立法現(xiàn)狀與執(zhí)法實(shí)踐,并以此為基礎(chǔ),提出我國經(jīng)營者承諾制度在利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障方面存在的問題。第二部分是關(guān)于承諾制度中利害關(guān)系人的范圍及其權(quán)益的界定。本部分首先對利害關(guān)系人的范圍進(jìn)行界定,將除涉案經(jīng)營者以外的權(quán)利義務(wù)受涉嫌壟斷行為影響的公民、法人或組織納入到利害關(guān)系人的范疇。并在此基礎(chǔ)上論述了利害關(guān)系人在適用承諾制度過程中應(yīng)當(dāng)享有的知情權(quán)、參與權(quán)以及救濟(jì)權(quán)等程序性權(quán)利。第三部分是關(guān)于承諾制度中利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障不足的原因及存在的問題。本部分首先分析了承諾制度中利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障不足的原因,并結(jié)合“中國電信、聯(lián)通壟斷案”的處理過程,提出了我國經(jīng)營者承諾制度在利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障方面存在的種種問題。第四部分是完善承諾制度中利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障制度的建議。本部分在分析比較美國、歐盟及我國臺灣地區(qū)立法理論及執(zhí)法經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上,立足我國國情,針對我國實(shí)踐中承諾制度在利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障方面的不足,提出進(jìn)一步完善相關(guān)制度的建議,以期對我國經(jīng)營者承諾制度中的利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益給予更為全面和有效的保護(hù)。
[Abstract]:The system of operator commitment refers to the system in which the antitrust law enforcement agency and the suspected monopoly operator agree in the investigation, the operator promises to stop the suspected monopoly behavior and eliminate the consequences of the behavior, and the law enforcement agency suspends the investigation. As an important form of modern anti-monopoly public law enforcement, it has the advantages of saving administrative resources and improving law enforcement efficiency. China's Anti-monopoly Law establishes the operator's commitment system on the basis of EU commitment decision system. However, as far as the existing laws and regulations are concerned, the commitment system of operators only stipulates the rights and obligations of law enforcement agencies and monopoly operators, and does not bring the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of interested parties into the scope of adjustment of the commitment system. In the course of the decision of the antitrust law enforcement agency to suspend the investigation, a mechanism for protecting the rights and interests of the stakeholders has not yet been established. On February 2, 2016, The new guidelines of the National Development and Reform Commission on the commitment of operators in antitrust cases (draft of soliciting opinions), although to some extent make up for the lack of legislation on the rights of participation of interested parties in our country, are still limited in practice. By using the methods of case study, value analysis and comparative study, this paper focuses on the protection of the rights and interests of the stakeholders in the system of undertakings. On the basis of affirming the value function of the system, this paper analyzes the procedural rights that the interested parties should enjoy in the application of the commitment system, This paper probes into the reasons and problems of the inadequate protection of the rights and interests of the interested parties in the system of undertakings of operators in China, and combines the similar experiences of overseas countries or regions in the protection of the rights and interests of the interested parties in the system. Some suggestions are put forward to perfect the system of manager commitment in our country. The main content of this paper is divided into four parts. The first part is about our country operator commitment system law enforcement present situation and the question put forward. This part begins with the case of China Telecom and China Unicom, analyzes and summarizes the current legislative situation and enforcement practice of the system of undertakings of operators in China, and takes it as the basis. This paper puts forward the problems in the protection of the rights and interests of the interested parties in the system of undertakings of operators in our country. The second part is about the scope of the stakeholders and the definition of the rights and interests in the commitment system. This part firstly defines the scope of the interested parties and brings the rights and obligations other than the operators involved into the category of the interested parties. On this basis, it discusses the procedural rights of the interested parties in the process of applying the promise system, such as the right to know, the right to participate and the right to remedy. The third part is about the reasons and problems of the inadequate protection of the rights and interests of the stakeholders in the commitment system. This part first analyzes the reasons for the inadequate protection of the rights and interests of the interested parties in the commitment system, and combines the process of handling the "China Telecom, Unicom monopoly case". This paper puts forward all kinds of problems in the protection of the rights and interests of the interested parties in the undertaking system of the operator in our country. The fourth part is the suggestion of perfecting the guarantee system of the rights and interests of the interested parties in the commitment system. Based on the analysis and comparison of the legislative theory and law enforcement experience of the United States, the European Union and Taiwan, this part aims at the deficiency of the commitment system in the protection of the rights and interests of the interested parties in the practice of our country, based on the situation of our country. In order to protect the rights and interests of the stakeholders in the commitment system of the operators in China, the author puts forward some suggestions to further improve the relevant systems in order to protect the rights and interests of the interested parties more comprehensively and effectively.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D922.294

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王清華;;評英國的公司利害關(guān)系人理論[J];公司法律評論;2002年00期

2 徐日丹;;鄧澤永:讓利害關(guān)系人參與立法[J];海南人大;2008年04期

3 黃義;;反壟斷承諾制度中利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障問題研究[J];價格理論與實(shí)踐;2014年02期

4 ;哪些人是利害關(guān)系人[J];家庭科技;2010年05期

5 賓文高;其他利害關(guān)系人的問題研究[J];桂海論叢;2004年S1期

6 單雙;公司社會責(zé)任的實(shí)現(xiàn)機(jī)制——兼評美國“其他利害關(guān)系人條款”[J];中國司法;2004年12期

7 邢艷芬;;淺議城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃利害關(guān)系人權(quán)利保護(hù)制度[J];法制與社會;2011年04期

8 何澤壽;獨(dú)立審計法律責(zé)任之我見[J];中國注冊會計師;2000年02期

9 葉金方;陳銘;;行政法上的利害關(guān)系人新探[J];河北青年管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年04期

10 梁睿;;行政處罰利害關(guān)系人請求確認(rèn)不侵權(quán)之訴的受理?xiàng)l件[J];人民司法;2009年14期

相關(guān)會議論文 前2條

1 宋景鴻;;招投標(biāo)投訴處理中一些法律問題的探討[A];責(zé)任與使命——七省市第十一屆建筑市場與招標(biāo)投標(biāo)聯(lián)席會優(yōu)秀論文集[C];2011年

2 趙海怡;錢錦宇;;立法介入產(chǎn)權(quán)安排的路徑分析[A];2008年度（第六屆）中國法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)論壇論文集（下）[C];2008年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 重慶市江津區(qū)人民法院 楊軍;后順位利害關(guān)系人可申請宣告公民死亡[N];人民法院報;2013年

2 單士兵;“先請利害關(guān)系人”帶來的聽證期待[N];中國消費(fèi)者報;2006年

3 康淼;福建：拆遷前,利害關(guān)系人可要求聽證[N];新華每日電訊;2006年

4 記者 肖海員　通訊員 彭紀(jì)輝;邀請利害關(guān)系人參與聽證化解糾紛[N];人民公安報;2011年

5 記者　郭宏鵬;拆遷前利害關(guān)系人享有聽證權(quán)[N];法制日報;2006年

6 廖德凱;民主立法勿須利害關(guān)系人“回避”[N];解放日報;2007年

7 龔翔;行政執(zhí)法中要重視利害關(guān)系人[N];中國醫(yī)藥報;2005年

8 喻中;司法需要面對的民意[N];法制日報;2013年

9 安徽省安慶市食品藥品監(jiān)管局 唐慧;莫遺忘利害關(guān)系人的權(quán)益[N];中國醫(yī)藥報;2011年

10 李金剛;共同違法受罰者是否互為利害關(guān)系人[N];人民法院報;2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王曉峰;論住宅商用法律制度[D];廣西大學(xué);2015年

2 王麗勤;未決沒收程序利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障的規(guī)制與完善思考[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

3 龍媛;反壟斷承諾制度中利害關(guān)系人的權(quán)益保護(hù)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

4 李媛媛;經(jīng)營者承諾制度中利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障問題研究[D];南京大學(xué);2016年

5 趙凱峰;規(guī)劃變更程序中利害關(guān)系人權(quán)益保障制度研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2013年

6 許文楚;利害關(guān)系人參與違法所得沒收程序研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

7 李春蘭;公司社會責(zé)任研究[D];廣東外語外貿(mào)大學(xué);2009年

8 林世開;城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃利害關(guān)系人研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年

9 李（王栗）蛟;證券投資基金運(yùn)作中利害關(guān)系人交易監(jiān)管制度研究[D];暨南大學(xué);2002年

10 朱美玲;行政訴訟中“利害關(guān)系人”的資格認(rèn)定及相關(guān)問題研究[D];山東大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號：1900431