美国反垄断损害规则及其启示

发布时间：2018-04-16 20:04

本文选题：私人反垄断诉讼 + 反垄断损害规则　；参考：《湘潭大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：反垄断损害是私人反垄断诉讼中至关重要的存在，任何原告要提起反垄断诉讼必然是因为其权益遭受了损害，而是否存在反垄断损害是辨别其所受损失是否在反垄断法保护的范围之内，也是区别其能否提起反垄断诉讼的关键之一。反垄断损害自美国在判例中出现之后就一直是美国私人反垄断诉讼中的焦点，几乎每个反垄断诉讼都会出现反垄断损害的相关问题。美国提出反垄断损害是在私人诉讼非常发达时期最高法院将其作为一种审慎限制原告资格写进判决中的，之后被很多国家借鉴用以辨别原告资格，反垄断损害规则的提出对反垄断法的实施具有重要作用，虽然我国反垄断法明确规定了反垄断民事诉讼，但是没有明确规定提起反垄断民事诉讼的原告范围，一旦私人主体提起反垄断民事诉讼法院首先需要解决的就是原告资格问题。我国反垄断法自颁布以来对实施方面的问题还在摸索阶段，很多制度还不是很成熟，而国外某些法域的反垄断法实施历史较长，就实施方面很多制度已经比较完善了，在原告资格确立方面也积累了不少经验，学习这些成熟的经验，对我国反垄断法实施制度的完善具有一定作用。美国作为反垄断法实施最久的国家，其私人反垄断诉讼非常发达，在众多私人诉讼中会有些非法竞争者利用反垄断诉讼阻碍竞争者与其竞争或是有些遥远的受害者提起反垄断诉讼会有让被告承担双倍责任的可能等，这些反垄断诉讼不规范使用现象的存在，即滥诉，是需要被禁止的，因此将反垄断损害规则作为确定原告资格的重要规定之一。美国反垄断损害规则主要包括三个方面的内容：被告行为具有垄断违法性；存在损害；原告所诉损害与被告行为之间具有因果关系。美国在适用这一规则的时候要求原告提供证据证明，确定了其资格之后才能让法院受理案件从而进入损害赔偿程序，这样对节省司法资源和维护市场正常竞争秩序都有积极意义。我国反垄断法实施以来，，也存在不规范提起反垄断民事诉讼的情况，有些并不是严格意义的反垄断案件进入反垄断法庭进行了审理，本文在分析我国反垄断法实施现状之后，对我国适用反垄断损害规则的必要性进行了分析，并从被告行为违法性、存在损害以及两者之间具有因果关系三个方面提出了一些制度性建议。这些制度多是结合我国现有国情确定的，同时考虑我国处于反垄断法实施初期，对确有反垄断损害的原告缺乏可操作性的程序，因此也提出了一些保障原告诉讼顺利进行的具体措施。私人反垄断诉讼中的反垄断损害是一个复杂的问题，在具体适用中将会遇到的问题还需要进一步探讨。
[Abstract]:Anti-monopoly damage is a vital existence in private antitrust litigation. Any plaintiff who wants to file an antitrust action is bound to suffer damage to his rights and interests.Whether there is antitrust damage is to distinguish whether the loss is within the scope of the protection of anti-monopoly law, but also one of the keys to distinguish whether the antitrust action can be brought.Anti-monopoly damage has been the focus of American private antitrust litigation since it appeared in the case law. Almost every antitrust lawsuit has some problems related to antitrust damage.The United States put forward antitrust damage was written into the judgment by the Supreme Court as a kind of prudent restriction on the plaintiff's qualification in the period when private litigation was very developed. After that, it was used by many countries to identify the plaintiff's qualification.The introduction of anti-monopoly damage rules plays an important role in the implementation of anti-monopoly law. Although China's anti-monopoly law clearly stipulates anti-monopoly civil action, there is no clear definition of the scope of plaintiff to initiate anti-monopoly civil action.Once the private subject brings the antitrust civil action court, the first problem that needs to be solved is the plaintiff's qualification.Since the promulgation of the Anti-monopoly Law in China, the problems in its implementation are still in the exploratory stage, and many systems are still not very mature. However, the implementation of anti-monopoly laws in some foreign jurisdictions has a long history, and many systems have been relatively perfect in terms of implementation.Many experiences have been accumulated in the establishment of plaintiff's qualification. Learning from these mature experiences will play a certain role in perfecting the enforcement system of anti-monopoly law in China.As the country with the longest antimonopoly law in force, the United States has a very developed private antitrust lawsuit.In many private lawsuits, there are illegal competitors who use antitrust litigation to prevent competitors from competing with them, or some remote victims who have the possibility of double the liability of the defendant.The existence of non-standard use of these antitrust actions, that is, excessive action, needs to be prohibited, so antitrust damage rules are regarded as one of the important provisions to determine the plaintiff's qualification.The American antitrust damage rules mainly include three aspects: the defendant's behavior has monopoly illegality, the existence of damage and the causality between the plaintiff's action and the defendant's action.In applying this rule, the United States requires the plaintiff to provide evidence that it has established its qualifications before allowing the court to hear the case and thus enter the damages procedure.This saves the judicial resources and maintains the market normal competition order to have the positive significance.Since the implementation of anti-monopoly law in China, there have also been cases of non-standard bringing of anti-monopoly civil action. Some non-strict antitrust cases have been tried by the court of anti-monopoly law. After the analysis of the current situation of the implementation of anti-monopoly law in China, this paper analyzes the current situation of the implementation of anti-monopoly law in China.This paper analyzes the necessity of applying anti-monopoly damage rules in China, and puts forward some institutional suggestions from three aspects: the illegality of the defendant's behavior, the existence of damage and the causality between the two.Most of these systems are determined in the light of the existing conditions of our country. At the same time, it is considered that our country is in the early stage of the implementation of the anti-monopoly law, and that there is a lack of operational procedures for the plaintiffs who do have anti-monopoly damage.Therefore, it also puts forward some specific measures to ensure the smooth progress of plaintiff litigation.Anti-monopoly damage in private antitrust litigation is a complex problem, and the problems that will be encountered in its application need to be further explored.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.294;D971.2

【参考文献】