發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-12-12 23:15

【摘要】：反壟斷法的私人主體實(shí)施是與反壟斷法的公共主體實(shí)施具有同等地位的反壟斷法不可或缺的實(shí)施方式，私人主體因?yàn)閴艛嘈袨檎叩倪`法壟斷行為使其利益受損時(shí)所提起的民事訴訟就是反壟斷法的私人訴訟。與普通的民事訴訟所不同的是，反壟斷法私人訴訟在原告的主體資格、舉證責(zé)任的分配等多方面均表現(xiàn)出不一樣的法律特征，反壟斷法私人訴訟還具有對私人救濟(jì)與對社會公益的雙重救濟(jì)功能。反壟斷法在具體的實(shí)施過程中，，私人主體實(shí)施與公共主體實(shí)施存在著顯著的差異。要保證反壟斷法功能的有效發(fā)揮，兩者之間的沖突就必須協(xié)調(diào)一致。我國的《反壟斷法》自2008年正式實(shí)施以來，對于促進(jìn)公平競爭產(chǎn)生了積極的作用。礙于《反壟斷法》對私人訴訟的規(guī)定過于原則，我國反壟斷法的私人實(shí)施沒有發(fā)揮應(yīng)有的作用。最高人民法院于2012年發(fā)布并實(shí)施了《關(guān)于審理因壟斷行為引發(fā)的民事糾紛案件應(yīng)用法律若干問題的規(guī)定》（以下簡稱壟斷民事糾紛案件司法解釋），該解釋對我國反壟斷私人訴訟的相關(guān)不足之處進(jìn)行了部分的改進(jìn)，可受害人在提起私人訴訟時(shí)仍困難重重,特別是在如何舉證證明違法者壟斷行為存在的證據(jù)上面。我們必須高度重視我國在反壟斷法私人訴訟領(lǐng)域存在的問題和不足，在借鑒國外先進(jìn)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的同時(shí)要全面考慮我國的現(xiàn)實(shí)國情來完善反壟斷法私人訴訟制度。建立界定原告資格的合理標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；建立諸如美國的三倍損害賠償制度；實(shí)施舉證責(zé)任倒置；建立有限的訴前禁令制度；完善反壟斷行政機(jī)關(guān)與私人訴訟的銜接性規(guī)定。
[Abstract]:The private subject implementation of the anti-monopoly law is an indispensable way of implementing the anti-monopoly law with the same status as the public subject of the anti-monopoly law. The private subject's civil action is the private suit of the antimonopoly law when his interests are damaged by the illegal monopoly behavior of the monopolist. Different from ordinary civil action, the private action of antimonopoly law shows different legal characteristics in many aspects, such as the plaintiff's qualification, the distribution of burden of proof and so on. The anti-monopoly private lawsuit also has the dual relief function to the private relief and the social public welfare. There are significant differences between the implementation of private subjects and public subjects in the implementation of anti-monopoly law. In order to ensure the effective function of anti-monopoly law, the conflict between the two must be coordinated. Since its implementation in 2008, China's Antimonopoly Law has played a positive role in promoting fair competition. Due to the over-principle of private litigation in Anti-monopoly Law, the private enforcement of anti-monopoly law in China has not played its due role. In 2012, the Supreme people's Court issued and implemented the provisions on the Application of Law in handling cases of Civil disputes caused by Monopoly (hereinafter referred to as Judicial interpretation of Monopoly Civil disputes). This explanation has partially improved the deficiencies of private antitrust litigation in China, but the victim still has many difficulties in initiating private litigation, especially on how to prove the evidence of the existence of the violator's monopoly. We must attach great importance to the problems and deficiencies in the field of private litigation of anti-monopoly law in our country. We should consider the reality of our country to perfect the private litigation system of anti-monopoly law while learning from the advanced experience of foreign countries. To establish reasonable criteria to define the plaintiff's qualification; to establish a triple damage compensation system such as the United States; to implement the inversion of the burden of proof; to establish a limited system of pre-suit injunctions; and to improve the connection between antitrust administrative organs and private litigation.
【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

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 李國海;反壟斷法損害賠償制度比較研究[J];法商研究;2004年06期

2 李俊峰;張穎;;反壟斷法草案損害賠償制度的法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)評論;2006年06期

3 張平;陳亮;;集團(tuán)訴訟中的利益沖突與被代表人利益保護(hù)機(jī)制研究[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2010年02期

4 張駿;;反壟斷損害賠償責(zé)任研究[J];南通大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);2011年01期

5 葉衛(wèi)平;;懲罰性賠償?shù)闹贫人伎糩J];上海財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2009年05期

本文編號：2375414