【摘要】：作為“經(jīng)濟(jì)法核心”的反壟斷法，在德國(guó)被稱為“經(jīng)濟(jì)憲法”，在美國(guó)被稱為“自由企業(yè)的大憲章”，由此可見(jiàn)，，它在調(diào)整競(jìng)爭(zhēng)關(guān)系中的作用是不言而喻的。而對(duì)于反壟斷法的實(shí)施來(lái)說(shuō)，私人提起反壟斷民事訴訟則是不可或缺的救濟(jì)渠道之一。因?yàn)樗瓤梢詮浹a(bǔ)公權(quán)力機(jī)構(gòu)實(shí)施的不足，又可以保障被侵權(quán)人權(quán)利的實(shí)現(xiàn)。在濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位民事訴訟中，原告資格是作為這一反壟斷民事訴訟程序中最為關(guān)鍵的環(huán)節(jié)，關(guān)系到訴訟能否順利啟動(dòng)的問(wèn)題。否則，此后的管轄、證明到裁判的作出等一系列程序都將無(wú)從談起。 因此，本文以濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位民事訴訟原告資格這一程序保障的啟動(dòng)環(huán)節(jié)作為分析框架的邏輯起點(diǎn)，進(jìn)而通過(guò)分析目前這類訴訟在我國(guó)運(yùn)行的狀況和所遇到的問(wèn)題，結(jié)合歐美相關(guān)國(guó)家的制度以及民事訴權(quán)理論，得出我國(guó)濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位民事訴訟的原告資格應(yīng)有別于一般的民事訴訟而具有獨(dú)特的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。就其實(shí)質(zhì)而言，根據(jù)反壟斷法的規(guī)定和立法精神以及民事訴訟法對(duì)起訴主體條件的規(guī)定，對(duì)于因?yàn)E用市場(chǎng)支配地位行為而遭受利益損害的實(shí)體消費(fèi)者，應(yīng)當(dāng)肯定其原告資格，從而調(diào)動(dòng)其參與反壟斷司法的積極性；而競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者為了給自己爭(zhēng)取更好的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)環(huán)境，往往更有動(dòng)力參與訴訟，也應(yīng)賦予競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者原告資格。此外，可以有限度地賦予部分社會(huì)團(tuán)體以原告資格，以彌補(bǔ)個(gè)體消費(fèi)者、小型競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者因力量薄弱而在訴訟中所顯現(xiàn)的種種不足。同時(shí)，我們還需要辯證地對(duì)待原告資格的擴(kuò)張，必須認(rèn)識(shí)到由此引發(fā)的策略性訴訟等負(fù)面因素，因此應(yīng)通過(guò)原告資格確定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及具體類型適當(dāng)限制原告資格。
[Abstract]:As the core of economic law, anti-monopoly law is called "economic constitution" in Germany and "Magna Carta of free enterprise" in America. For the implementation of anti-monopoly law, private-initiated anti-monopoly civil action is one of the indispensable relief channels. Because it can not only make up for the deficiency of the public authority, but also guarantee the realization of the infringed rights. In the civil action of abusing the dominant position of the market, the plaintiff's qualification is the most important link in the procedure of antitrust civil action, which is related to whether the lawsuit can be initiated smoothly. Otherwise, the subsequent jurisdiction, proof of the referee to make a series of procedures will not be possible. Therefore, this paper takes the qualification of plaintiff in civil litigation as the logical starting point of the analysis framework, and then through the analysis of the current situation of this kind of litigation in China and the problems encountered. Combined with the system of European and American countries and the theory of civil right of action, it is concluded that the plaintiff's qualification of abusing market dominant position in civil litigation should be different from that of general civil action and have a unique judgment standard. In essence, according to the provisions of anti-monopoly law and the spirit of legislation and the provisions of the civil procedure law on the conditions of the subject of prosecution, the plaintiff's qualification should be confirmed for the entity consumers who have suffered damage to their interests as a result of the abuse of their dominant position in the market. In order to mobilize their enthusiasm to participate in antitrust justice; In order to strive for a better competitive environment, competitors are often more motivated to participate in litigation, should also give the plaintiff qualification. In addition, some social groups can be granted plaintiff qualification to make up for the shortcomings of individual consumers and small competitors in litigation because of their weak power. At the same time, we also need to treat the expansion of plaintiff qualification dialectically, we must recognize the negative factors such as strategic litigation and so on, so we should restrict the plaintiff qualification by the criteria and specific types of plaintiff qualification.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)計(jì)量學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1;D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 何治中;;美國(guó)反壟斷法間接購(gòu)買者原則研究[J];東方法學(xué);2008年04期

2 王秋良;劉金媯;;反壟斷民事訴訟原告資格的認(rèn)定——基于他國(guó)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的思考與借鑒[J];東方法學(xué);2011年04期

3 孫莉;;程序控權(quán)與程序性立法的控權(quán)指向檢討——以《行政訴訟法》立法目的為個(gè)案[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2007年02期

4 王健;;反壟斷法私人執(zhí)行制度初探[J];法商研究;2007年02期

5 王健;;關(guān)于推進(jìn)我國(guó)反壟斷私人訴訟的思考[J];法商研究;2010年03期

6 高家偉;論行政訴訟原告資格[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1997年01期

7 鄭鵬程;;《反壟斷法》私人實(shí)施之難題及其克服:一個(gè)前瞻性探討[J];法學(xué)家;2010年03期

8 孫穎;;論消費(fèi)者組織的運(yùn)作與發(fā)展[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2010年01期

9 鄭文通;;我國(guó)反壟斷訴訟對(duì)“濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位”規(guī)定的誤讀[J];法學(xué);2010年05期

10 時(shí)建中;;私人訴訟與我國(guó)反壟斷法目標(biāo)的實(shí)現(xiàn)[J];中國(guó)發(fā)展觀察;2006年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 張大海;德國(guó)群體訴訟制度研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2008年

本文編號(hào)：2325444