【作者】 刘媛媛；

【导师】 李胜利；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 《中华人民共和国反垄断法》于2008年8月1日生效以来,就吸引了中国社会广泛的关注,已经有多起社会影响力大的反垄断案件见诸各大媒体。作为维持市场经济体系的一部基础性法律,作为维护市场经济有序竞争,保障各市场经济主体在市场竞争中健康发展的重要法律,与其他规制对象单一的经济法相比,反垄断法处理的垄断协议、滥用市场支配地位、经营者集中及行政性垄断等问题有着不同于其他法律规制对象的复杂性和专业性；反垄断民事诉讼作为一种特殊的诉讼也区别于一般民事诉讼和行政诉讼。反垄断民事诉讼针对的垄断违法行为是一种特殊的侵权行为,从目前来看,我国的反垄断民事诉讼兼具补偿功能、惩罚功能及预防功能。因此,反垄断民事诉讼的实施不仅可以弥补公共实施的不足之处,还能够进一步促进反垄断法的有效实施。反垄断法既是一部程序法也是一部实体法。但我国反垄断法的配套诉讼制度却十分简单,基本上对诉讼中的管辖问题,原被告主体问题,举证责任问题,行政前置的相关规定方面未给予明确的规定,所有程序上的规定在反垄断法律条文中只反映在简单的一个条款上,这与整个国际形势及我国反垄断法所设立的目的也是不和谐的,也是不利于的反垄断诉讼的发展环境。基于我国反垄断民事诉讼的现状及不足,所以本文将从整个诉讼全过程出发,将我国反垄断民事诉讼实践过程中的许多问题逐一罗列,再从立法及实践的角度出发,对美国、欧盟、日本等反垄断法比较完善的国家和地区反垄断民事诉讼(或称反垄断私人执行)相关制度的实践情况进行研究,并特别关注美国、欧盟成员国及日本的诸如诉讼主体的发展趋势、举证责任、赔偿责任、证据相关制度以及行政前置等诉讼制度。根据上述比较并结合我国反垄断民事诉讼的发展现状,从中认识到我国现阶段的垄断并不是市场经济自由、充分发展导致的垄断,而是还长期存在在计划经济体制惯性下产生的行政垄断。作为最终裁判者的我国法院该有效应对这一审判领域全新的问题,从而充分发挥反垄断法作为经济宪法之功效、保障市场的有序竞争、增加司法反垄断案件的结案效率、节约资源成本、更利于司法的公正。在与国际发达国家的反垄断民事诉讼实践比较后,结合我国现阶段的国情,就我国反垄断民事诉讼制度中几个有争议的相关问题提出一些设置设想：在我国反垄断案件管辖法院上建议由审级较高的中级人民法院管辖；在当事人主体设置上建议放宽限制,从而鼓励更多的诉讼主体参加进来,并建议完善公益诉讼；在当事人举证责任的分配的设计上应更倾向于弱势群体；同时在损害赔偿责任的制定上建议按照双倍赔偿来制定。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since "AML" came into force on August 1,2008, it has attracted widespread attention, and a large number of antitrust cases of great social influence are covered in the major media. As a basic law of maintaining the market economic system, AML can grantee the orderly competition market and ensure kinds of economy mainstay healthily develop in market competition. AML is more complicated and more professional than the economic law, in dealing with monopoly agreements, abuse of dominant position, concentration of business operators and administrative monopoly problems. Antitrust Civil Litigation is also a special litigation, different from usual civil action and administrative action. Civil antitrust violations against the monopoly is a special kind of infringements, and now it also has abilities of anti-monopoly civil compensation, penalty function and prevention capabilities in China. Therefore, the implementation of civil anti-trust can not only make up for the inadequacies of the public to implement, but also further promote the effective implementation of anti-monopoly law.Antitrust law is both a process is also a substantive law. However, the matching of antitrust litigation system is very simple, basically the issue of jurisdiction of the proceedings, the original defendant, the main issue, the burden of proof, the relevant provisions of the administrative front did not give clear provisions.All procedural requirements the provisions in the antitrust laws reflect only the terms in a simple one, this with the entire international situation and the purpose of antitrust laws is established by discord, and it is not conducive to the development of antitrust litigation environment. Based on the anti-monopoly status and the lack of civil litigation, so this whole process starting from the proceedings, the civil antitrust practice of many of the problems one by one in the list, from the perspective of legislation and practice, the United States, European Union, Japan antitrust fairly complete national and regional civil anti-trust (or antitrust private enforcement) related to the practice of the system studied, with particular focus on U.S., EU and Japan, such as the development trend of the subject of proceedings, burden of proof responsibility, liability, evidence and other related systems and administrative litigation front. Comparison of the above combined with the development of civil anti-trust status, learn about the monopoly of our country at this stage is not the free market economy, led to the monopoly of full development, but also long-standing under the planned economic system inertia generated by administrative monopolies. As the final judge of our effective response to the trial court area of the new problems, to maximize the effectiveness of anti-monopoly law as an economic constitution, security and orderly market competition, increase judicial efficiency closed antitrust cases, the cost saving resources more conducive to justice.In the developed countries and international comparison antitrust civil practice, combined with China’s current situation to the system of civil anti-trust issues in several controversial ideas put forward some settings:the antitrust case in China court of competent jurisdiction to recommend a higher level by the trial Intermediate People’s Court jurisdiction; set in the main parties on the proposed relaxation of restrictions on the subject of proceedings in order to encourage more participation in, and proposed to improve the public interest litigation; the parties to the design of the allocation of the burden of proof should be more inclined to vulnerable groups; the same time in the development of liability for damages on the proposal to develop according to double compensation.更多还原