反垄断司法审查管辖研究

【作者】 王小梅；

【导师】 张明杰；

【作者基本信息】 中国社会科学院研究生院 ， 宪法与行政法学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 反垄断司法审查作为反垄断行政执法权的监督机制和当事人权利的救济机制,关系到反垄断法的实施效果,在反垄断法中具有重要地位。有关反垄断司法审查的诸多问题中,管辖是前提,所以,域外反垄断立法均对管辖有明确规定。但是,我国《反垄断法》并没有明确规定反垄断司法审查的管辖,而《行政诉讼法》所确定的管辖体制还存在诸多问题。因此研究反垄断司法审查管辖,对于丰富我国反垄断司法审查理论和指导司法实践都具有重要意义。本文在借鉴域外经验的基础上,立足我国实际,围绕我国反垄断司法审查管辖法院的确定展开研究,并对反垄断行政执法体制、司法管辖改革、行政授权、反垄断复议机关的重构以及监管机构与竞争机构的关系进行重点论述。本文包括四章内容。第一章探讨反垄断司法审查管辖的涵义与范围。从梳理域外司法管辖的概念与制度入手,分析我国目前司法管辖制度存在的问题,界定我国反垄断司法审查管辖的概念与范围,并指出反垄断司法审查的管辖不仅仅指初审法院之间的分工,还包括法院类型的确定与审级制度的重构。第二章研究域外反垄断司法审查管辖模式。分析普通法院上诉审模式、行政法院模式和专门法院模式的涵义、特点和原因,指出对确定我国反垄断司法审查管辖模式的启示,即反垄断司法审查管辖法院的确定一方面与反垄断行政执法体制息息相关,另一方面也与本国的法院制度和司法传统相适应。第三章讨论我国反垄断司法审查管辖模式选择。分析并总结我国现行的反垄断行政执法体制与司法管辖制度的特点,论证我国不能采用行政法院模式和专门法院模式的原因,指出我国应该在改革行政诉讼审级制度和完善反垄断行政执法体制的基础上采取普通法院上诉审模式,并进一步提出由高级人民法院成立专门反垄断法庭对反垄断案件进行集中审理的整体框架。第四章论述几种特殊情况下反垄断司法审查管辖。通过探讨地方反垄断行政案件、反垄断行政复议案件以及监管行业反垄断案件管辖法院的确定,对行政授权、反垄断复议机构的重构以及监管机构与反垄断机构的关系作重点研究。更多还原

【Abstract】 Judicial review of antitrust decisions, as controlling mechnism of antitrust enforcment as well as remedy channel for citizen’s rights, determines the effect of antitrust enforcement and therefore plays a principal role in antitrust law. Among all the issues of judicial review of antitrust decisions, which court shall have jurisdiction to review antitrust decisions is crucial and should be addressed in the first place. Owing to its significance, the issue of jurisdiction is well stipulated in foreign antitrust legislations. On the contrary, our Anti-monopoly Law does not provide the jurisdiction of judicial review of antitrust decisions, and yet the Administrative Litigation Law cannot be applied because of its own deficiencies. Consequently, the research on jurisdiction of judicial review of antitrust decisions is of significance to enrich our theory of judicial review of antitrust decisions as well as to provide some guidance and reference for our judicial practice .This dissertation consists of four chapters as below.Chapter One explores the definition and the scope of judicial review of antitrust decisions. After clarifying the concept of judicial jurisdiction as well as the jurisdictional regime in foreign countries and analyzing the problems existing in our jurisdictional regime, the chapter redefines the jurisdiction of judicial review of antitrust decisions and its scope, and highlights that the jurisdiction of judicial review of antitrust decisions refers to not only the division between trial courts, but also deciding the type of reviewing court and reconstructuring the trial level system.Chapter Two focuses on three modes of courts reviewing antitrust decisions. In foreign countries, there exist three modes of courts reviewing antitrust decisions: administrative court, specialized court and genernal court, esp. appellate court. This chapter dipicts their respective characteristics and analyzes the reasons for each mode being choosed , and further concludes that the choice of reviewing court is connected with antitrust administrative enforcing mechanism on one hand, and adapts to the country’s judicial regime and tradition.Chapter Three mainly talks about our choice of jurisdictional mode. After giving an overview of Chinese antitrust enforcment system and judical review jurisdiction, this chapter comes to a conclusion that general courts,esp. appellate court is the appropriate court for China to review antitrust decisions, and further puts forward a framework of establishing a specialized branch in Higher People’s Court to review antitrust decisions.Chapter Four deals with how to settle down the jurisdiction issue in several complicated cases, and more specifically addresses a number of issues such as local antitrust enforcment, administrative reconsideration of antitrust decisions and antitrust enforcement in regulated sectors.更多还原