反垄断民事诉讼举证责任分配问题研究

发布时间：2018-02-26 20:10

本文关键词： 反垄断举证责任分配反垄断民事诉讼　出处：《深圳大学》2016年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：论文的主要内容是垄断民事诉讼举证责任的分配问题。第一部分从我国反垄断民事诉讼举证责任分配的制度现状以及反垄断民事诉讼的实施现状写起,从中发现我国反垄断民事诉讼举证责任分配方面所存在的问题。再讨论反垄断诉讼本身所具有的一系列特殊性,以说明调整我国现行反垄断民事诉讼举证责任分配的必要性。第二部分首先分析调整反垄断民事诉讼举证责任分配的理论依据,再讨论影响、规范或决定反垄断民事诉讼举证责任分配的价值蕴含和两种分析方法。这一部分的主要目的是说明调整反垄断民事诉讼举证责任分配的合理性。第三部分内容为比较法研究,反垄断民事诉讼在西方发达国家长久以来拥有较为丰富的实践经验以及相对完善的制度基础,极有研究和借鉴价值。通过对美国、德国、日本三个国家反垄断民事诉讼举证责任经验的总结,发现共性,为我国提供参考。第四部分是结合之前的论述给出完善我国反垄断民事诉讼举证责任分配笔者自己的思考,主要从反垄断民事诉讼中原告获取证据难度的减轻以及原告举证责任的减轻两方面给出具体建议。之所以分成这两个看起来有些相似的方面,是因为严格来考察部门法的举证责任分配问题,原告获取证据是不属于举证责任范畴,只能将其归类于与主观的举证责任相关的配套证据制度。这二者不能同一,但原告获取证据的难易与举证责任的最终分配又息息相关,因此并列提出。具体而言,反垄断民事诉讼中原告获取证据难度的减轻可以通过两方面来实现:一是反垄断执法机构对民事诉讼的支持,二是引入美国的证据开示制度;而原告举证责任的减轻则通过放宽对某些事实原告的证明标准、确认某些事实推定以及设置举证责任倒置这三方面来实现。
[Abstract]:The main content of the thesis is the distribution of the burden of proof in the monopoly civil litigation. The first part is written from the current situation of the system of the distribution of the burden of proof in our country's antitrust civil action and the present situation of the implementation of the antitrust civil action. The problems in the distribution of the burden of proof in our country's antitrust civil litigation are found out, and a series of particularities of the antitrust litigation itself are also discussed. In order to explain the necessity of adjusting the distribution of the burden of proof in the current civil action against monopoly in our country, the second part first analyzes the theoretical basis of adjusting the distribution of the burden of proof in the civil action against monopoly, and then discusses the influence. The main purpose of this part is to explain the rationality of adjusting the distribution of the burden of proof in antitrust civil litigation. The third part is a comparative study. Anti-monopoly civil litigation in western developed countries for a long time has a relatively rich practical experience and relatively perfect institutional basis, it is extremely valuable to study and draw lessons from the United States, Germany, This paper summarizes the experiences of the three countries in Japan, finds out the commonness of the burden of proof, and provides reference for our country. Part 4th gives my own thoughts on how to improve the distribution of the burden of proof in our country's antitrust civil litigation combined with the previous exposition. Mainly from the two aspects of reducing the difficulty of obtaining evidence for the plaintiff and reducing the burden of proof of the plaintiff in an antitrust civil action. The reason is to divide the two aspects into two aspects, which seem to be somewhat similar. Because of the strict examination of the distribution of the burden of proof in the department law, the plaintiff does not belong to the category of the burden of proof, and can only classify it as a supporting evidence system related to the subjective burden of proof. However, the difficulty of obtaining evidence by the plaintiff is closely related to the final distribution of the burden of proof. There are two ways to reduce the difficulty of obtaining evidence in antitrust civil litigation: one is the support of antitrust law enforcement agencies to civil litigation, the other is the introduction of the evidence discovery system of the United States; The relief of the burden of proof of the plaintiff is realized by relaxing the standard of proof for some facts, confirming the presumption of certain facts and setting up the inversion of the burden of proof.
【学位授予单位】：深圳大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】