反垄断法行政执法与民事诉讼协调问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-08 17:43

  本文选题：反垄断法 + 行政执法　； 参考：《天津师范大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：经济的健康运行需要良好的竞争环境,这是市场经济的内在要求。为了创造和维持良好的竞争环境,以美国为先导,世界多国纷纷制定反垄断法,并通过该法来规范市场结构和市场主体的行为。一百多年的反垄断法实践证明,反垄断法于国家的经济发展有着无比重要的作用,而要充分发挥这一作用,达到预期的立法目标,不仅需要一部完善的反垄断法律,还需要一套完善的,行之有效的反垄断法实施体制。反垄断法的实施有两种途径：公共实施和私人实施。由国家反垄断主管机构对垄断行为进行监管的行为被称为公共实施；由私人主体发动引起的反垄断法实施,被称为私人实施。 反垄断法实施中公共实施主要是体现在行政权的使用上,即行政执法。而私人实施主要是注重司法权的使用,即民事诉讼。在实践中若出现既可以由反垄断行政执法部门主管又可以由私人通过司法程序直接提起民事损害赔偿诉讼的案件.在客观上就产生行政权与司法权同时行使来确认某些行为是否构成垄断的情况，，也就是说反垄断法实施中行政执法与民事诉讼会产生冲突。当然，在运行过程 实施程序等方面,行政执法和民事诉讼也会产生冲突,这主要是由于行政执法与民事诉讼的立法主旨、界定标准和执法理念等方面的不同。在当今世界各国仍以行政执法为主要的反垄断法实施的方式,正是基于在此情况下行政执法与民事诉讼必将在程序启动、程序运行以及后续诉讼等方面出现冲突与协调的问题,只有处理好二者之间的关系,才能使反垄断法的实施得以顺利进行,发挥其在经济生活中的重要作用,这已经成为反垄断法的重要课题。也只有行政执法与民事诉讼二者相互协调才能使反垄断法实施健康发展。 本文的正文分为三个部分。 第一部分是协调反垄断法行政执法和民事诉讼的必要性,主要是通过分析反垄断法行政执法与民事诉讼各自的优越性和缺陷,反垄断立法在我国目前的立法缺陷,以及现在国际现在反垄断实施的趋势这三个方面来确定协调反垄断法行政执法与民事诉讼的必要性。明确只有将二者有效的协调起来才能更利于反垄断法的实施,从而为全文奠定论述的基础。 第二部分是构建合理的反垄断行政执法与民事诉讼协调机制的依据。主要是从理论依据和实践依据来分析的。通过介绍国际协调此冲突的一般做法,主要通过提出问题,介绍美、德、日本等国家的基本规定,并作出分析和评述，并希望从中获得启示,从而为构建适合我国的机制提供实践经验。 第三部分是构建合理的反垄断法行政执法与民事诉讼冲突协调机制的对策,针对我国反垄断法实施的现状,包括现行法律的规定及司法实践中二者协调的处理规则，对我国协调二者关系作出具体的理解和分析。首先是行政执法和民事诉讼要明确分工,主要是借鉴欧盟的做法明确规定了公共实施和私人实施的分配标准即依据“共同利益体”来分配,公共实施只对于涉及重大公共利益或影响的案件。其次是行政执法与民事诉讼要进行合作。民事诉讼要为行政执法提供协助。基于我国的国情民情,我国的反垄断法应以行政执法为主,民事诉讼作为行政执法重要的支持也是不可或缺的；主要体现在民事诉讼为行政执法提供信息,民事诉讼要监督行政执法,另外,行政执法要对民事诉讼给与支持。行政执法对民事诉讼要有足够的支持,才能为其发展创造条件和提供适当的空间,最后,也是特别注意的部分行政还要对私人实施做适当的限制,避免出现对社会资源的浪费,也只有这样才能将民事诉讼的作用发挥得当。这一部分是本文的核心。
[Abstract]:The healthy operation of the economy needs a good competitive environment, which is the inherent requirement of the market economy. In order to create and maintain a good competitive environment, the United States as the guide, many countries in the world have formulated antitrust laws, and through the law to regulate the behavior of the market structure and the market body. More than 100 years of antitrust law practice proved that the antitrust law is The economic development of the country has a very important role. To make full use of this role and achieve the desired legislative goal, it not only needs a perfect anti monopoly law, but also needs a set of perfect and effective anti-monopoly law enforcement system. There are two ways to implement antitrust law: public implementation and private implementation. The act of supervising the monopoly by the competent authority is called public enforcement, and the enforcement of the anti-monopoly law initiated by the private entity is called private enforcement.
The public implementation of the anti monopoly law is mainly embodied in the use of administrative power, namely, the administrative law enforcement. The private implementation mainly focuses on the use of judicial power, that is, civil litigation. In practice, the case of civil damage compensation litigation can be brought directly by the executive of the antitrust administrative law enforcement department and by the private judicial procedure. In an objective way, administrative power and judicial power are exercised at the same time to confirm whether certain acts constitute a monopoly, that is to say, there will be conflict between administrative law enforcement and civil action in the implementation of antitrust law. Of course, it is in operation.
The administrative law enforcement and civil litigation will also conflict. This is mainly due to the difference between the legislative theme of the administrative law enforcement and the civil procedure, the definition of the standard and the concept of law enforcement. In the present world, the administrative law enforcement is still the main way to implement the antitrust law, which is based on the administrative law enforcement and the people in this case. The lawsuit will inevitably appear in the process of proceeding, procedure, and subsequent litigation, such as conflict and coordination. Only by dealing with the relationship between the two can the implementation of the antitrust law be carried out smoothly and play its important role in the economic life. This has become an important subject of the anti-monopoly law. The mutual coordination between the two parties in the civil litigation can make the anti-monopoly law develop healthfully.
The text of this article is divided into three parts.
The first part is the necessity of coordinating the administrative law enforcement and civil action of antitrust law, mainly through the analysis of the advantages and defects of the administrative law enforcement and civil action of the antitrust law, and the three aspects of the current legislative defects in our country and the trend of the present international antitrust enforcement in China to determine the coordination antitrust law. The necessity of administrative law enforcement and civil action is clear. It is clear that only the effective coordination of the two can be more conducive to the implementation of the antitrust law, thus laying the foundation for the full text.
The second part is the basis for the construction of a reasonable anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement and civil litigation coordination mechanism. It is mainly analyzed from the theoretical basis and the practice basis. By introducing the general practice of international coordination of this conflict, the basic provisions of the United States, Germany and Japan are introduced, and the analysis and review are made. It will provide inspiration and provide practical experience for building a mechanism suitable for China.
The third part is the countermeasures to construct a reasonable anti-monopoly law enforcement and civil litigation conflict coordination mechanism. In view of the present situation of the implementation of China's antitrust law, including the provisions of the current law and the coordination of the two parties in judicial practice, the author makes a concrete understanding and analysis of the relationship between the two parties in China. It is necessary to make clear the division of labor in the litigation. It is mainly to draw on the practice of the European Union to specify the distribution standards of public implementation and private implementation, that is, according to the "common interest", and the public implementation is only for cases involving major public interests or effects. Secondly, the administrative law enforcement and civil litigation should be cooperated. For assistance. Based on the national situation and civil situation in China, the anti-monopoly law of our country should be based on administrative law enforcement, and the civil action as the important support of administrative law enforcement is also indispensable; it is mainly reflected in the civil litigation for administrative law enforcement to provide information, civil litigation to supervise administrative law enforcement, and the administrative law enforcement should support civil litigation. Law enforcement should have sufficient support for civil action to create conditions for its development and provide the appropriate space. In the end, part of the special administration should also make appropriate restrictions on private implementation so as to avoid the waste of social resources, and only in this way the role of civil litigation can be played properly. This part is the article. The core.
【学位授予单位】：天津师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.294;D925.1


本文编号：1996645