本文關(guān)鍵詞：反壟斷民事訴訟中證明制度研究　出處：《鄭州大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 反壟斷 證明對象 證明責(zé)任 證明標(biāo)準

【摘要】：我國《反壟斷法》從實施至今已經(jīng)有七年了,反壟斷民事訴訟案件卻屈指可數(shù),在屈指可數(shù)的案件中大多數(shù)還是以原告的敗訴或撤訴結(jié)束的。其中有些案件的確無論是在證據(jù)還是法律上都是不能得到法官支持的,但也不乏一些案件是因為我國反壟斷民事訴訟制度設(shè)計的不完善,導(dǎo)致本應(yīng)該被保護的法益沒有被保護。證明制度作為民事訴訟的重要制度之一其對反壟斷民事訴訟案件的影響尤其重要。本文通過對反壟斷民事訴訟中證明制度的分析研究,結(jié)合我國的法律和司法實踐現(xiàn)狀對我國反壟斷民事訴訟中證明制度提出一些建議,以促進《反壟斷法》的順利實施,保護市場競爭,保護社會公共利益,保護消費者的合法權(quán)益,最終保證我國市場經(jīng)濟的可持續(xù)發(fā)展。首先對反壟斷民事訴訟中證明制度的概念、特征、功能等進行分析。通過反壟斷民事訴訟中證明制度的概念和特征分析,明確了什么是反壟斷民事訴訟中證明制度,反壟斷民事訴訟中證明制度和一般民事訴訟證明制度上存在差異。反壟斷民事訴訟當(dāng)事人訴訟能力的懸殊,證明對象的多樣性,證明責(zé)任的特殊性,證據(jù)的復(fù)雜性等特征都要求反壟斷民事訴訟中證明制度在具體的制度設(shè)計上要同一般的民事訴訟制度有所不同。通過對反壟斷民事訴訟中證明制度的功能等分析,說明該制度對于反壟斷民事訴訟具有重要性。其次,對國外的反壟斷民事訴訟中證明制度進行了對比研究,包括證明責(zé)任、證明標(biāo)準、證據(jù)開示制度、專家證人制度以及反壟斷執(zhí)法機構(gòu)決議的效力的研究和介紹。通過對國外一些先進制度的研究和介紹,以期使我國相對落后的證明制度進行一定的借鑒和學(xué)習(xí)。然后,對我國反壟斷民事訴訟中證明制度的法律規(guī)定和司法實踐進行了分析,主要是對證明對象、證明責(zé)任和證明標(biāo)準進行了深入的解析,在我國基本國情的基礎(chǔ)上,通過對國外制度的借鑒指出了我國反壟斷民事訴訟中證明制度在證明責(zé)任、證明標(biāo)準、證據(jù)收集和類型、法院組織機構(gòu)及與反壟斷行政決議效力等方面存在的不足和缺陷。最后,結(jié)合我國的反壟斷訴訟司法實踐、法律制度,在構(gòu)建證明責(zé)任和證明標(biāo)準制度、探索引進國外先進制度、完善法院組織機構(gòu)等方面提出了合理建議。促進我國建立更加合理完善的反壟斷民事訴訟證據(jù)制度。
[Abstract]:It has been seven years since the implementation of the Anti-monopoly Law in China, but the number of civil antitrust litigation cases is few. Most of the few cases ended in the plaintiff's defeat or withdrawal. Some of these cases did not have the support of a judge either in evidence or in law. But there are also some cases because of the imperfect design of our anti-monopoly civil litigation system. The legal interests which should be protected have not been protected. As one of the important systems in civil action, the proof system is especially important to the antitrust civil litigation cases. The analytical research. Combined with the current situation of our country's law and judicial practice, this paper puts forward some suggestions on the proof system in our country's antitrust civil litigation, in order to promote the smooth implementation of the Anti-monopoly Law, protect the market competition and protect the social and public interests. To protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and ultimately to ensure the sustainable development of our market economy. First of all, the concept and characteristics of proof system in antitrust civil litigation. Through the analysis of the concept and characteristics of the proof system in the antitrust civil action, it is clear what is the proof system in the antitrust civil action. There are differences between the proof system in antitrust civil action and the proof system in general civil action. The great disparity of litigant's litigation ability in antitrust civil action, the diversity of the object of proof and the particularity of the burden of proof. The complexity of evidence and other characteristics require that the system of proof in antitrust civil action should be different from that of ordinary civil litigation in the specific system design. This paper analyzes the function of proof system in antitrust civil action. . Explain the importance of the system for antitrust civil action. Secondly, the foreign antitrust civil litigation in the system of proof of comparative research, including the burden of proof, standards of proof, evidence discovery system. Research and introduction of expert witness system and the effectiveness of antitrust law enforcement agency. Through the research and introduction of some advanced systems abroad. In order to make our country relatively backward certification system for reference and learning. Then, the article analyzes the legal provisions and judicial practice of the proof system in the civil antitrust litigation, mainly on the object of proof. The burden of proof and the standard of proof are deeply analyzed. On the basis of the basic national conditions of our country, this paper points out the burden of proof and the standard of proof in the civil action of antitrust in our country through the reference of the foreign system. Evidence collection and types, court organization and the effectiveness of antitrust administrative resolutions and other aspects of the shortcomings and defects. Finally, combined with our judicial practice of antitrust litigation, the legal system. The author puts forward some reasonable suggestions on how to construct the system of burden of proof and standard of proof, to explore the introduction of foreign advanced systems, and to perfect the organization of the court, so as to promote the establishment of a more reasonable and perfect system of evidence in civil action against monopoly in China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D925.13;D922.294

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 王先林;論聯(lián)合限制競爭行為的法律規(guī)制——《中華人民共和國反壟斷法(草擬稿)》的相關(guān)部分評析[J];法商研究;2004年05期

2 胡衛(wèi)平;;專家證據(jù)的可采性——美國法上的判例和規(guī)則及其法理分析[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2005年06期

3 王學(xué)棉;民事訴訟證明本體論研究[J];政法論壇;2002年01期

，

本文編號：1367327