我国反垄断私人诉讼制度研究

发布时间：2018-07-07 15:53

本文选题：反垄断 + 私人诉讼　；参考：《辽宁大学》2015年博士论文

【摘要】：《中华人民共和国反垄断法》经过20多年的努力,终于在2008年8月1日正式实施。在这部法律中,反垄断私人诉讼首次成为我国规制垄断行为的路径。在国际上,反垄断法的实践表明反垄断私人诉讼已成为规制垄断、保证反垄断法实施的重要补充方式。而在我国,私人诉讼对垄断规制乏力。虽然我国积极完善反垄断私人诉讼立法,出台了有关反垄断私人诉讼的司法解释,但是反垄断私人诉讼制度仍存在诉讼主体资格范围狭窄、群体诉讼制度缺失、专家证人制度残缺、行政垄断不可诉、诉讼程序与行政执法程序之间无有效衔接等制度困境。针对我国反垄断私人诉讼制度缺失与实践难题,大部分学者认为其症结在于我国移植反垄断法时间短、缺乏竞争秩序建立和管理经验,没有处理好政府和市场、竞争与产业政策的关系。本文认为这些表象的背后,隐藏着政府及社会对反垄断私人诉讼立法与司法的深层次价值冲突,正是这种价值冲突导致了反垄断私人诉讼立法与实施的诸多困境,阻碍其制度实施的效果。基于理论以实践为导向的法学研究精神,本文运用实证分析、价值分析、比较分析、历史分析方法,对我国反垄断私人诉讼制度价值理论、诉讼主体制度、群体诉讼制度、专家证人制度、诉讼程序衔接制度等领域展开了重点研究。本文结合我国反垄断私人诉讼的现实特点,选择具有代表意义的美国、欧盟、德国、日本、巴西作为制度参照样本,针对有效解决我国反垄断私人诉讼的相关制度困境、保障反垄断私人诉讼规制垄断的效力,提出了具有创建性的建议。首先,在研究理论方面,本文提出运用法的价值相关理论分析我国反垄断私人诉讼价值冲突的现实困境。价值冲突的发现与解决是反垄断私人诉讼制度完善的前置性环节。本文研究横亘于我国反垄断私人诉讼发展面前的意识形态和文化的价值冲突障碍及消除方法。其次,针对诉讼主体,本文经过制度比较,立法与实践的分析,提出应赋予竞争者、间接购买者和社会团体成为诉讼主体,增加行政机关成为诉讼主体,健全我国的代表人诉讼制度,完善专家证人制度。最后,针对反垄断私人诉讼与行政执法制度的程序衔接问题,本文提出在程序选择时应维护行政执法机关的裁定原则、程序竞合时的酌情选定原则及结果应用时的程序整合原则。全文针对我国反垄断私人诉讼这一反垄断领域中亟待解决的全新课题,在深入探讨反垄断私人诉讼理论根据,以及立法实践依据的基础上,致力于完善我国反垄断私人诉讼的理论研究。进而期冀通过这些初步的理论创建研究为我国反垄断私人诉讼对垄断行为的规制提供相应的立法和司法建议,从而为完善我国反垄断私人诉讼制度提供一定的理论与制度借鉴。
[Abstract]:After more than 20 years of efforts, the anti-monopoly law of the people's Republic of China finally came into effect on August 1, 2008. In this law, private antitrust litigation is the first way to regulate monopoly behavior in China. Internationally, the practice of anti-monopoly law shows that private antitrust litigation has become an important supplementary way to regulate monopoly and ensure the implementation of anti-monopoly law. But in our country, the private lawsuit is weak to the monopoly regulation. Although our country has actively improved the legislation of antitrust private litigation and issued the judicial explanation of antimonopoly private litigation, there is still a narrow scope of qualification of litigation subjects and the absence of group action system in the system of private antitrust litigation. The expert witness system is incomplete, the administrative monopoly cannot be sued, and there is no effective connection between the litigation procedure and the administrative law enforcement procedure. In view of the lack of private antitrust litigation system and the practical problems in China, most scholars believe that the crux of the problem lies in the short time of transplanting anti-monopoly law, the lack of experience in the establishment and management of competition order, and the failure to deal with the government and the market well. The relationship between competition and industrial policy. This paper holds that behind these appearances lies the deep value conflict between the government and the society on the legislation of private antitrust litigation and the administration of justice, which leads to many dilemmas in the legislation and implementation of private antitrust litigation. The effect of hindering the implementation of its system. Based on the theory of practice-oriented legal research, this paper uses the methods of empirical analysis, value analysis, comparative analysis and historical analysis to analyze the value theory, litigation subject system, group litigation system of private antitrust litigation system in China. The expert witness system, the procedure connection system and so on have launched the key research. Based on the practical characteristics of private antitrust litigation in China, this paper chooses the representative of the United States, the European Union, Germany, Japan and Brazil as the system reference samples, aiming at effectively solving the relevant system dilemma of the private antitrust litigation in China. In order to protect the effectiveness of private antitrust litigation, some constructive suggestions are put forward. First of all, in the aspect of research theory, this paper puts forward to use the theory of value correlation of law to analyze the realistic dilemma of value conflict of private antitrust litigation in our country. The discovery and resolution of value conflict is the prelude to the perfection of anti-monopoly private litigation system. This paper studies the obstacles of value conflict between ideology and culture in the development of private antitrust litigation in China and the ways to eliminate them. Secondly, according to the system comparison, the analysis of legislation and practice, this paper puts forward that the competitors, indirect buyers and social organizations should be given the main body of litigation, and that the administrative organs should be added as the main body of litigation. Perfect our country's representative litigation system, perfect the expert witness system. Finally, in view of the procedure connection between private antitrust litigation and administrative law enforcement system, this paper puts forward that the ruling principle of administrative law enforcement agencies should be maintained when choosing the procedure. The discretionary selection principle when the program is competing and the procedure integration principle when the result is applied. The full text aims at the new subject that our country antitrust private lawsuit needs to be solved urgently in the field of antimonopoly, on the basis of deeply discussing the theoretical basis and legislative practice basis of antimonopoly private lawsuit. Committed to improve our country's antitrust private litigation theory research. Through these preliminary theoretical research, the author hopes to provide corresponding legislative and judicial suggestions for the regulation of antitrust private litigation in China, thus providing certain theoretical and institutional reference for perfecting the private antitrust litigation system in China.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.294

【参考文献】