【摘要】：以《反壟斷法》的頒布實(shí)施作為一個(gè)分水嶺，我國(guó)的反壟斷局面發(fā)生一個(gè)翻天覆地的變化。隨著公眾對(duì)《反壟斷法》認(rèn)識(shí)的加深以及自身權(quán)利和社會(huì)公益維護(hù)意識(shí)慢慢覺醒，在實(shí)踐中涌現(xiàn)出許多反壟斷公益維權(quán)案件，越來越多的公民和企業(yè)，特別是直接利益受到壟斷違法行為侵害的個(gè)體，希望能夠直接參與到反壟斷活動(dòng)之中，通過某些途徑對(duì)抗壟斷違法行為，實(shí)現(xiàn)自身權(quán)利的救濟(jì)，維護(hù)社會(huì)公共利益。但我國(guó)《反壟斷法》所規(guī)定的反壟斷實(shí)施機(jī)制是以行政手段為主，零星的規(guī)定了追究刑事責(zé)任的某些情形，并未對(duì)公眾參與反壟斷訴訟的具體措施進(jìn)行規(guī)定，僅在第五十條中原則性地規(guī)定了壟斷違法者的民事責(zé)任，這種反壟斷實(shí)施機(jī)制已經(jīng)無法適應(yīng)形勢(shì)的要求。反壟斷公益訴訟作為新興的反壟斷實(shí)施手段，順應(yīng)時(shí)代發(fā)展的趨勢(shì)并符合現(xiàn)實(shí)的需要，它開始受到學(xué)界和司法實(shí)踐領(lǐng)域的關(guān)注和重視。 反壟斷公益訴訟允許自然人、法人、非法人組織、公益團(tuán)體等市場(chǎng)參與主體在法律規(guī)定的范圍內(nèi)，在壟斷侵益行為發(fā)生或處于某種預(yù)期損害的威脅狀態(tài)之時(shí)，為了維護(hù)國(guó)家和社會(huì)公益，保護(hù)自身的合法權(quán)益避免侵害，向具有管轄權(quán)的法院起訴，它以其自身的特性及特殊的制度設(shè)計(jì)在反壟斷實(shí)施中有著得天獨(dú)厚的優(yōu)勢(shì)。第一，反壟斷公益訴訟迎合了反壟斷法的“社會(huì)本位”的要求，反壟斷法可以通過反壟斷公益訴訟對(duì)社會(huì)公共利益提供更為有效的保護(hù)，對(duì)受損的社會(huì)公共利益進(jìn)行救濟(jì)，完成自身的立法目的和任務(wù)，兩者之間有著完美的契合；第二，反壟斷公益訴訟打破了傳統(tǒng)民事訴訟法中對(duì)當(dāng)事人的“直接利害關(guān)系”要求，允許與壟斷違法行為并沒有直接利害關(guān)系的自然人、法人、非法人組織甚至公益團(tuán)體提起訴訟，可以最大程度地發(fā)動(dòng)公眾力量打擊壟斷違法行為；三，運(yùn)用群體性訴訟模式解決反壟斷訴訟糾紛，節(jié)省訴訟資源，提高訴訟效率；四、反壟斷公益訴訟中的證據(jù)制度設(shè)計(jì)、刺激鼓勵(lì)機(jī)制都體現(xiàn)著對(duì)弱勢(shì)群體的傾向性保護(hù)，并且檢察機(jī)關(guān)介入到反壟斷公益訴訟中，更適合應(yīng)對(duì)反壟斷活動(dòng)中訴訟雙方力量不對(duì)等的實(shí)際情況，有利于調(diào)動(dòng)私人原告的積極性，增強(qiáng)原告方的力量。 本文在宏觀、整體把握反壟斷公益訴訟制度基本理論的前提下，主要運(yùn)用實(shí)證與比較分析的方法，對(duì)美、日、德等幾個(gè)發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家的反壟斷公益訴訟制度進(jìn)行比較研究，在比較他們?cè)谠V訟模式與訴訟規(guī)則方面的制度設(shè)計(jì)過程中引出對(duì)我國(guó)反壟斷公益訴訟制度建設(shè)的啟示，并進(jìn)一步分析我國(guó)當(dāng)前反壟斷實(shí)施中存在的問題及我國(guó)引入反壟斷公益訴訟的價(jià)值，最終構(gòu)建適應(yīng)本國(guó)國(guó)情的反壟斷訴訟模式與規(guī)則。特別值得提出的是本文要在借鑒他國(guó)該領(lǐng)域先進(jìn)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上建立一系列服務(wù)于反壟斷公益訴訟的配套激勵(lì)措施，在此之前，，國(guó)內(nèi)學(xué)界在這個(gè)方面的研究并不多。全文通過五個(gè)部分進(jìn)行闡述。 第一部分通過具體案例引入，進(jìn)而分析選題的背景和意義； 第二部分在了解反壟斷公益訴訟發(fā)展進(jìn)程的前提下，對(duì)其概念及內(nèi)涵進(jìn)行全面闡述，并揭示反壟斷公益訴訟的特點(diǎn)，從法理、政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)層面分析其理論基礎(chǔ)； 第三部分介紹并比較英美法系與大陸法系幾個(gè)國(guó)家有代表性的反壟斷公益訴訟制度，把握其對(duì)我國(guó)反壟斷公益訴訟制度構(gòu)建的啟示； 第四部分分析反壟斷與公益訴訟的契合性，從法律與經(jīng)濟(jì)兩個(gè)角度對(duì)在反壟斷中引入公益訴訟進(jìn)行價(jià)值分析，闡述反壟斷引入公益訴訟的必要性； 第五部分借鑒國(guó)外在反壟斷公益訴訟上的先進(jìn)經(jīng)驗(yàn)，結(jié)合我國(guó)具體情況，構(gòu)建我國(guó)反壟斷公益訴訟規(guī)則，其中包括我國(guó)反壟斷公益訴訟模式的選擇、原告資格的界定、舉證責(zé)任的分配、刺激鼓勵(lì)機(jī)制幾個(gè)方面，通過對(duì)這幾方面的探討提出建立反壟斷公益訴訟制度的初步意見。
[Abstract]:With the promulgation and implementation of the "antitrust law" as a watershed, China's anti-monopoly situation has undergone a dramatic change. With the deepening of the public awareness of the anti monopoly law, and the awakening of its own rights and social public welfare maintenance consciousness, many anti trust public welfare rights cases have emerged in practice, and more and more citizens and enterprises have come into being. In particular, the individuals who have been infringed by the monopoly law, especially the direct interests, are expected to be able to participate in the anti monopoly activities directly, to counteract the monopolistic acts in some ways, to realize the relief of their own rights and to safeguard the social and public interests. However, the Anti-monopoly Enforcement mechanism stipulated in China's antitrust law is mainly administrative and sporadic. It stipulates certain cases of criminal responsibility, and does not stipulate specific measures for public participation in antitrust litigation. It stipulates the civil liability of the monopolistic violators in principle only in the fiftieth article. This anti-monopoly implementation mechanism is unable to meet the requirements of the situation. Conform to the trend of development of the times and meet the needs of reality, it has begun to receive the attention and attention of academia and judicial practice.
The antitrust public interest litigation allows the market participants, such as natural persons, legal persons, non legal persons, and public welfare groups, to protect the national and social public welfare and protect their legitimate rights and interests from the legal rights of the court in the scope of the legal provisions. The prosecution, with its own characteristics and special system design, has a unique advantage in the implementation of antitrust. First, the anti trust public interest litigation caters to the "social standard" of the antitrust law, and the antitrust law can provide more effective protection to the social public interest through the antitrust public interest litigation and the damaged social public. The common interests carry out relief and complete their own legislative purposes and tasks, and there is a perfect agreement between them. Second, the antitrust public interest litigation breaks the "direct interest relationship" of the parties in the traditional civil procedure law and allows the natural persons, legal persons, non legal organizations and even non legal organizations that have no direct harm to the illegal acts of monopoly. Public interest groups take action to initiate public power to combat monopoly illegal behavior to the maximum extent. Three, use group litigation mode to solve antitrust litigation disputes, save litigation resources, improve litigation efficiency; four, the design of evidence system in antitrust public interest litigation, stimulating incentive mechanism to reflect the tendency of vulnerable groups. Protection, and the procuratorial organ intervenes in the antitrust public interest litigation, is more suitable to deal with the actual situation of the unequal strength of the two parties in the anti monopoly activities, which is beneficial to mobilize the enthusiasm of the private plaintiff and strengthen the power of the plaintiff.
On the premise of macro and overall grasp of the basic theory of antitrust public interest litigation system, this paper makes a comparative study of the antitrust public interest litigation system in several developed countries, such as the United States, Japan, Germany and other developed countries by using the method of empirical and comparative analysis. The Enlightenment of the construction of antitrust public interest litigation system, and further analysis of the existing problems in the implementation of anti-monopoly in China and the value of the introduction of anti trust public interest litigation in our country, and finally build the anti-monopoly litigation mode and rules adapting to the national conditions of our country. It is particularly worth putting forward that this article should be based on the advanced experience of this field in other countries. Set up a series of supporting incentive measures to serve the antitrust public interest litigation. Before this, there are few studies in this field in the domestic academic circles. The full text is expounded through five parts.
The first part is the introduction of specific cases, and then analyzes the background and significance of the topic selection.
The second part, under the premise of understanding the development process of antitrust public interest litigation, expatiate on its concept and connotation, and reveal the characteristics of antitrust public interest litigation, and analyze its theoretical basis from the legal and political economic level.
The third part introduces and compares the representative antitrust public interest litigation system in several countries of common law and continental law system, and grasps its enlightenment to the construction of China's antitrust public interest litigation system.
The fourth part analyzes the compatibility between antitrust and public interest litigation, and analyzes the value of the introduction of public interest litigation in antitrust from two angles of law and economy, and expounds the necessity of introducing antitrust into public interest litigation.
The fifth part, drawing on the advanced experience of foreign antitrust public interest litigation and combining with the specific circumstances of our country, constructs the rules of our country's antitrust public interest litigation, including the choice of our antitrust public interest litigation mode, the definition of the qualification of the plaintiff, the distribution of the burden of proof, the stimulation and encouragement mechanism, and the discussion of these aspects. A preliminary opinion on the establishment of a system of antitrust public interest litigation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：重慶大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 宋怡林;法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的效益目標(biāo)[J];鞍山科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2003年01期

2 李長(zhǎng)春;羅麗華;;制度溯源及其意義——公益訴訟原告制度的法系考察[J];北京航空航天大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年03期

3 陳靜媛;公法、私法的劃分及其意義[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);1999年02期

4 耿昭;;對(duì)政府網(wǎng)上公眾參與的實(shí)踐與思考[J];電子政務(wù);2008年Z1期

5 王曉曄;;有效競(jìng)爭(zhēng)——我國(guó)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)政策和反壟斷法的目標(biāo)模式[J];法學(xué)家;1998年02期

6 王立國(guó);;經(jīng)濟(jì)法視野下的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)訴訟機(jī)制[J];遼寧公安司法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年01期

7 宋海偉;王海峰;;反壟斷貿(mào)易壁壘機(jī)制初探[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年02期

8 黎雅琴;;美國(guó)消費(fèi)者集團(tuán)訴訟中的“優(yōu)待券”和解問題初探[J];凱里學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期

9 汪洋;唐加鍇;;公共選擇理論視野下的腐敗治理問題[J];中國(guó)市場(chǎng);2011年22期

10 鄭鵬程;;美國(guó)反壟斷法三倍損害賠償制度研究[J];環(huán)球法律評(píng)論;2006年02期

本文編號(hào)：2147287