中澳反垄断行政执法机构比较研究
发布时间：2018-08-22 18:38
【摘要】：目前世界上的主要国家大都通过行政执法机构实施反垄断法。相对而言，其执法成本较低，执法方式灵活，执法效率更高。我国的反垄断行政执法设置是商务部下属的反垄断局负责管理企业并购（经营者集中）的垄断行为，发改委下属的价格监督检查与反垄断局管理价格垄断行为，工商总局下属的反垄断与反不正当竞争执法局管理除价格垄断外的垄断协议、滥用市场支配地位、经营者集中和行政垄断行为。同时在各个行业监管领域有专门的行业监管机构进行反垄断执法。澳大利亚的反垄断行政执法机构为澳大利亚竞争与消费者委员会（ACCC)，其负责对各种垄断行为的调查检查，并对企业并购进行审核批准。对于除企业并购以外的垄断行为的处罚则是由ACCC向联邦法院起诉，由联邦法院进行处罚裁决。 通过对两国的反垄断行政执法机构的对比与分析，同时参照国际上主流的反垄断执法经验。可以看出我国的反垄断行政执法在机构设置上存在着权威不够，独立性不足，专业性程度不高的问题，在管辖范围和执法权限上存在着多元管辖,权责混乱的情况。这些问题有立法观念、执法实践和我国国情的原因，因此目前的制度设置是一种折中的安排，有一定的合理性，但也有很大的改进空间。未来我国的反垄断行政执法应该朝着专业性集中化权威化的方向前进，同时在权利制约和程序性限制上需要加强。可以将“三驾马车”的执法权收归于国务院反垄断委员会，由后者统一执法，同时加强司法机构对反垄断行政执法机构的监督和分权。
[Abstract]:At present, most of the major countries in the world implement anti-monopoly laws through administrative law enforcement agencies. Comparatively speaking, its law enforcement cost is lower, the law enforcement method is flexible, the law enforcement efficiency is higher. The establishment of anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement in China is the monopoly behavior of the anti-monopoly bureau under the Ministry of Commerce, which is responsible for the management of enterprise mergers and acquisitions (concentration of operators), and the price supervision and inspection of the NDRC and the management of price monopoly by the anti-monopoly bureau. The Bureau of Anti-Monopoly and Anti-unfair Competition Law under SAIC administers monopoly agreements except price monopoly abuse of market dominant position concentration of operators and administrative monopoly. At the same time, there are specialized industry regulatory agencies to carry out anti-monopoly law enforcement in various industry regulatory fields. Australia's antitrust administrative enforcement agency, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), is responsible for investigating various monopolies and approving mergers and acquisitions. The penalty for monopolistic behavior other than M & A is filed by ACCC in the federal court and decided by the federal court. Through the comparison and analysis of the antitrust administrative law enforcement agencies in the two countries, and referring to the international mainstream anti-monopoly law enforcement experience. It can be seen that our country's antitrust administrative law enforcement has the problems of insufficient authority, lack of independence, low degree of professionalism, multiple jurisdiction and confusion of power and responsibility in the scope of jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of law enforcement. These problems have legislative idea, law enforcement practice and the reason of our country's national condition, so the present system setup is a kind of eclectic arrangement, has certain rationality, but also has the very big improvement space. In the future, China's antitrust administrative law enforcement should move towards the direction of professional centralization and authoritarianism, at the same time, the restriction of rights and procedural restrictions should be strengthened. The law enforcement power of "troika" can be transferred to the State Council Anti-monopoly Commission, which will unify the law enforcement, and strengthen the judicial supervision and decentralization of the anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement agencies.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D961.1;D922.294
本文编号：2197965
[Abstract]:At present, most of the major countries in the world implement anti-monopoly laws through administrative law enforcement agencies. Comparatively speaking, its law enforcement cost is lower, the law enforcement method is flexible, the law enforcement efficiency is higher. The establishment of anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement in China is the monopoly behavior of the anti-monopoly bureau under the Ministry of Commerce, which is responsible for the management of enterprise mergers and acquisitions (concentration of operators), and the price supervision and inspection of the NDRC and the management of price monopoly by the anti-monopoly bureau. The Bureau of Anti-Monopoly and Anti-unfair Competition Law under SAIC administers monopoly agreements except price monopoly abuse of market dominant position concentration of operators and administrative monopoly. At the same time, there are specialized industry regulatory agencies to carry out anti-monopoly law enforcement in various industry regulatory fields. Australia's antitrust administrative enforcement agency, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), is responsible for investigating various monopolies and approving mergers and acquisitions. The penalty for monopolistic behavior other than M & A is filed by ACCC in the federal court and decided by the federal court. Through the comparison and analysis of the antitrust administrative law enforcement agencies in the two countries, and referring to the international mainstream anti-monopoly law enforcement experience. It can be seen that our country's antitrust administrative law enforcement has the problems of insufficient authority, lack of independence, low degree of professionalism, multiple jurisdiction and confusion of power and responsibility in the scope of jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of law enforcement. These problems have legislative idea, law enforcement practice and the reason of our country's national condition, so the present system setup is a kind of eclectic arrangement, has certain rationality, but also has the very big improvement space. In the future, China's antitrust administrative law enforcement should move towards the direction of professional centralization and authoritarianism, at the same time, the restriction of rights and procedural restrictions should be strengthened. The law enforcement power of "troika" can be transferred to the State Council Anti-monopoly Commission, which will unify the law enforcement, and strengthen the judicial supervision and decentralization of the anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement agencies.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D961.1;D922.294
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前7条
1 周昀;关于反垄断主管机构的比较研究[J];比较法研究;2002年04期
2 李小明;王红伟;;从反垄断法的公法性质论其立法修改及完善[J];财经理论与实践;2010年06期
3 刘德龙,赵阳,张晓宇;试论我国反垄断法执行体系的构建[J];当代法学;2003年12期
4 王晓晔;;关于我国反垄断执法机构的几个问题[J];东岳论丛;2007年01期
5 王晓晔;;我国反垄断行政执法机构多元化的难题[J];中国发展观察;2006年09期
6 李岭南;;论我国反垄断执法机构的改革及其完善[J];龙岩学院学报;2011年01期
7 王健;赵世琳;;构建我国反垄断行政执法体制的思考[J];行政与法;2009年07期
，本文编号：2197965
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2197965.html
