我国垄新行为经济法责任问题研究

发布时间：2018-05-22 19:49

本文选题：垄断行为 + 起诉主体　；参考：《中央民族大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：要实现任何法律规范所追求的法律秩序和价值体系都不能离开健全的法律制度的保障,反垄断法维护的公正的竞争秩序是市场秩序运行的基本前提。建立符合我国国情、符合世界发展潮流、符合经济发展趋势、符合我国经济法价值追求的反垄断行为的经济法责任制度不仅有利于规制垄断行为目标的实现,确保了反垄断法的权威地位,同时为经济实力的整体提升和长远健康发展提供了重要保障。我国《反垄断法》自2008年颁布实施以来,发展速度日新月异,执法尝试不断深入,2014年可谓是反垄断法飞速发展的一年,针对汽车、眼镜等行业的反垄断调查和执法给规制垄断行为打了一剂强心针,这也是符合世界发展潮流的做法,由于我国反垄断发展起步较晚,在使用经济法责任规制垄断行为的过程中还有许多不足,在本文的研究过程中,将针对我国目前立法上的缺陷进行分析,同时借鉴国外的经验,提出建议和意见。在本文的第一章中,分别从经济法责任的概念、垄断行为的概念出发阐述垄断行为经济法责任的基本理论,通过综合分析得出垄断行为经济法责任的涵义和特殊性,根据目前我国的现实情况和相关学术理论,得出我国使用经济法责任规制垄断行为的必要性和紧迫性。第二章着重介绍我国目前《反垄断法》对垄断行为的具体规定,分为可诉性、起诉主体、举证责任和责任承担方式四个方面,得出在可诉性方面存在的有实体权利而无法发挥实效、行政垄断缺乏可诉性、司法权威性低等不足；在起诉主体方面的规定缺乏合理的起诉标准,公益诉讼规定笼统不全面,检察机关作为法律监督机关诉权的缺失；举证责任方面单纯的将反垄断诉讼归于民事诉讼范围内,举证直接套用民事侵权的规则,给起诉主体造成不合理的诉讼负担；在责任承担方式上,存在着民事责任过于单薄、行政责任缺乏可操作性、刑事责任立法上的空缺等缺陷。第三章分别介绍了美国、日本和我国台湾地区反垄断法的整体概况,三个国家和地区虽然反垄断的具体规定不尽相同,经济法责任的实施也各有特点,综合来看,从可诉性、起诉主体、举证责任、责任承担方式等方面都有值得我国借鉴和学习之处。最后一章是本文的重点部分,在前文中提出的我国反垄断法立法上的缺陷、其他国家和地区值得借鉴的方面在文章第四章要进行综合的整理,提出立法上的一些建议。在可诉性方面提出了构建整体性的反垄断诉讼程序、使用司法手段规制行政垄断、加强反垄断诉讼透明、公正、公开性以加强权威等意见；在起诉主体方面也对我国当前规定进行了补充,提倡扩大诉讼主体范围；同时在举证责任方面对应诉讼主体的不同地位和起诉能力做了分别的建议,减轻间接消费者等弱势起诉群体的证明责任等,针对垄断行为的经济法责任的承担形式,从民事责任、行政责任和刑事责任三个方面做分析；针对我国存在的特殊的垄断类型——行政垄断,也做了符合我国国情的立法建议。本文通过使用归纳总结、查漏补缺的方法从宏观上看待我国目前的反垄断立法,在肯定我国反垄断法长足进步的同时找到不足之处,再通过比较分析等方法结合发达国家和地区的反垄断先进经验,对我国垄断行为经济法责任进行了比较法的研究,最后针对可诉性、起诉主体、举证责任和责任承担方式四个方面提出立法建议。
[Abstract]:The legal order and value system pursued by any legal norms can not leave the guarantee of a sound legal system. The fair competition order maintained by the anti monopoly law is the basic prerequisite for the operation of the market order. It is in line with the national conditions of our country, conforms to the trend of the world development, conforms to the trend of economic development, and is in line with the value pursuit of the economic law of China. The economic law responsibility system of antitrust behavior not only helps to regulate the realization of the objective of monopolistic behavior, ensures the authority status of the antitrust law, but also provides an important guarantee for the overall promotion of economic strength and the long-term healthy development. Since the promulgation and implementation of the anti monopoly law in 2008, the speed of development has changed rapidly and the law enforcement attempt is constantly being tried. In depth, 2014 is a year of rapid development of antitrust law. Antitrust investigation and enforcement of antitrust industries, such as automobiles, glasses and other industries, have given a strong point to the regulation of monopoly behavior. This is also a practice in line with the trend of development in the world. Because of the late development of China's antitrust development, there is also a late start in the use of economic law responsibility to regulate monopoly behavior. In the course of this paper, we will analyze the shortcomings of our country's legislation and draw on the foreign experience and put forward suggestions and opinions. In the first chapter of this paper, the basic theory of economic law responsibility of monopolistic behavior is expounded from the concept of economic law responsibility and the concept of monopoly behavior, and the comprehensive analysis is made. According to the current situation of our country and the relevant academic theory, the necessity and urgency of the use of economic law responsibility to regulate monopoly behavior in our country are obtained according to the current situation of our country and the relevant academic theories. The second chapter focuses on the introduction of China's present "anti monopoly law" on the monopoly act, which is divided into the prosecution, the subject of prosecution and the burden of proof. There are four aspects of the way of responsibility and responsibility, which can not give full effect to the existence of substantive rights in the prosecution, the administrative monopoly is lack of prosecution, and the authority of the judiciary is low. The provisions of the prosecution subject are lack of reasonable standards of prosecution, the provisions of public interest litigation are generally not comprehensive, and the procuratorial organs act as the right to appeal to the legal supervision organs. In the aspect of the burden of proof, the anti trust litigation is simply attributed to the scope of the civil action, and the proof is directly applied to the rules of civil tort, which causes the unreasonable burden of litigation; in the way of responsibility, there is a lack of civil liability too thin, the lack of administrative responsibility, the vacancy in the legislation of criminal responsibility and so on. The third chapter introduces the general situation of the antitrust law in the United States, Japan and the Taiwan region of our country. Although the specific provisions of the anti monopoly are different in three countries and regions, the implementation of the responsibility of economic law also has its own characteristics. In a comprehensive view, it is worth our reference from the aspects of the prosecution, the subject of prosecution, the burden of proof and the way of responsibility. The last chapter is the key part of this article. In the previous article, the defects in the legislation of China's antitrust law are put forward. In the fourth chapter of the article, other countries and regions should make a comprehensive arrangement and put forward some suggestions on the legislation. To regulate administrative monopoly by judicial means, to strengthen the transparency, fairness and openness of antitrust litigation, to strengthen the authority and so on; to supplement the current provisions of our country in the subject of prosecution and to promote the extension of the scope of the main body of the litigation; at the same time, the differences in the burden of proof corresponding to the different status of the litigation subject and the ability to prosecute are made separately. The proof responsibility of the vulnerable groups, such as the light and indirect consumers, is analyzed in three aspects: the civil liability, the administrative responsibility and the criminal responsibility in the form of the responsibility of the economic law of the monopoly, and the special monopoly type in our country, the administrative monopoly, has also made the legislative proposals which conform to the national conditions of our country. Summarizing and summarizing the methods of missing the vacancy, we look at the present anti-monopoly legislation in our country at the macro level, and find the shortcomings at the same time, while affirming the great progress of our antitrust law, and then through the comparative analysis and other methods to combine the advanced experience of the developed countries and regions, and make a comparative study of the responsibility of our country's monopoly economic law. Then it puts forward legislative proposals in four aspects: actionable, prosecution, burden of proof and responsibility.
【学位授予单位】：中央民族大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.294

【参考文献】