滥用市场支配地位纠纷中的举证责任研究

发布时间：2018-11-04 10:43

【摘要】：2014年,中国刮起“反垄断风暴”,反垄断执法机构对日企开出12亿的罚单,中国反垄断法在公共执行领域取得了显著成绩。在民事诉讼领域,最高人民法院对号称“互联网第一案”作出终审判决,这是反垄断诉讼史上的巨大进步。但从总体上看,我国公民主动以反垄断法为武器主张权利和寻求救济的积极性还不是很高。这里,一方面的原因在于反垄断法的重要性没有引起公众的重视以及我国竞争文化的欠缺,另一方面就是与反垄断诉讼相配套的诉讼机制还相对不完善。作为一种费用高昂且耗时耗力的反垄断诉讼,如果在诉讼中无法很好的分配原被告双方的举证能力,设计合理的证明标准,普通民众很难有动力和能力直接起诉大的垄断商。奇虎诉腾讯案之所以能够完整地走完程序有一方面的原因也在于原被告双方都是有一定实力的企业,在此之前的私人诉讼,基本都是以原告举证不能、不足败诉而告终。与滥用市场支配地位相关的案件纠纷在审理过程中存在原告举证难的问题,这将削弱受到滥用行为侵害的消费者或经营者依据《中华人民共和国反垄断法》(以下简称《反垄断法》)依靠司法的力量维护自身利益的积极性。《最高人民法院关于审理因垄断行为引发的民事纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的规定》(以下简称《垄断纠纷司法解释》)的出台在一定程度上缓解了原告的举证困难,但是仍存在不完善之处,主要表现在关于此类纠纷的举证责任分配在该司法解释中并没有取得较大突破,该司法解释在减轻原告举证责任和举证责任倒置等方面并没有实质性的规定。最高人民法院的司法解释是就《反垄断法》在实践中如何操作提供的指导性的意见,司法解释不可能与全国人大制定审议的法律相冲突,也无权对《反垄断法》的内容进行修正增补,因为全国人大及其常委会始终掌握着法律的司法解释权。《反垄断法》对此没有规定,最高院很难对此内容有实质性的突破。所以,我国在滥用市场支配地位诉讼中原告仍负担较重举证责任。滥用市场支配地位的举证责任应将我国民事诉讼中规定的“谁主张,谁举证”作为第一原则,但由于反垄断案件具有特殊性,部分事实的举证责任应进行变通规定,以更好的对案件事实加以举证。本文试图通过对奇虎诉腾讯案的事实及判决书进行实证分析,探讨具体案件中举证的困难,并提出相应对策,以期对我国的滥用市场支配地位的举证责任有所裨益。
[Abstract]:China's anti-monopoly law has made remarkable progress in public enforcement after a "storm of antitrust" erupted in 2014, when antitrust law enforcement agencies imposed 1.2 billion fines on Japanese companies. In the field of civil litigation, the Supreme people's Court has made great progress in the history of antitrust litigation. But on the whole, the initiative of Chinese citizens to claim the right and seek relief is not very high. Here, on the one hand, the reason is that the importance of anti-monopoly law has not attracted public attention and the lack of competition culture in China, on the other hand, the litigation mechanism associated with anti-monopoly litigation is relatively imperfect. As a costly and time-consuming antitrust lawsuit, it is difficult for ordinary people to directly sue large monopolists if the burden of proof of both sides of the original defendant can not be distributed well and reasonable standard of proof is designed. The reason why Qihu v. Tencent can complete the procedure completely is that both sides of the original defendant are enterprises with certain strength. In the case disputes related to the abuse of market dominant position, there is the problem of the plaintiff having difficulty in proving evidence in the course of the trial. This will weaken the enthusiasm of consumers or operators aggrieved by abuse to rely on judicial power to safeguard their own interests in accordance with the Anti-monopoly Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Anti-Monopoly Law). < the Supreme people Provisions of the Court on the Application of Law in hearing cases of Civil disputes caused by Monopoly. (hereinafter referred to as "Judicial interpretation of Monopoly disputes"), to a certain extent, the difficulty of proving evidence for the plaintiff has been alleviated. However, there are still some imperfections, which are mainly reflected in the fact that the distribution of the burden of proof in this kind of dispute has not made a great breakthrough in the judicial interpretation. The judicial interpretation has no substantive provisions on lightening the burden of proof and reversing the burden of proof. The judicial interpretation of the Supreme people's Court is a guiding opinion on how to operate the Anti-monopoly Law in practice. Judicial interpretation cannot conflict with the laws formulated and deliberated by the National people's Congress. They also have no right to amend and supplement the contents of the Anti-monopoly Law, because the NPC and its standing Committee always hold the power of judicial interpretation of the law. The Anti-monopoly Law does not provide for this, and it is very difficult for the Supreme Court to make a substantial breakthrough in this content. Therefore, the plaintiff still bears a heavy burden of proof in the abuse of market dominant position litigation. The burden of proof for abusing the dominant position of the market should take "who claims, who proves" as the first principle, but because of the particularity of antitrust cases, the burden of proof of some facts should be adjusted. A better proof of the facts of the case. This paper attempts to make an empirical analysis of the facts and judgments in Qihu v. Tencent case, to discuss the difficulty of proving evidence in specific cases, and to put forward corresponding countermeasures in order to benefit the abuse of the burden of proof of market dominance in our country.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.294

【相似文献】