欧盟反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼制度研究

发布时间：2018-05-01 02:33

本文选题：反垄断损害赔偿 + 诉权主体　；参考：《郑州大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼是反垄断私人执行的重要方式,不仅弥补了公共执行的先天缺陷,而且极大地激发了私人提起反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼的热情。目前,各国都在极力推进反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼的制度构建,其中,欧盟于2014年12月5日发布的《关于违反欧盟及其成员国竞争法的损害赔偿诉讼若干规则的第2014/104号指令》(以下简称“第2014/104号指令”)是其中的典范。我国在该领域的最新立法是2012年6月1日起施行的《最高人民法院关于审理因垄断行为引发的民事纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的规定》(以下简称“若干问题的规定”),但其实施效果一直不太令人满意。为此,我国越来越重视有关制度规则的学习和借鉴,欧盟反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼的发展与我国表现出相同的特征,非常值得我国学习。本文主要内容如下:第一章是反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼一般理论。首先,指出本文所界定的反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼为狭义解释,并与民法上的此制度进行了比较。其次,通过垄断的负外部性、反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼的公共物品性和公共实施的先天缺陷这三个角度论证了该制度构建的必要性。最后,运用公共选择理论、政府俘获理论、理性选择理论和信息不对称理论阐述了该制度的理论基础。第二章是欧盟反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼制度的历史演进。从立法和实践两个方面追溯了欧盟反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼的来源,之后经过立法上的梳理,展示了欧盟一步步推进反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼制度的决心。第三章是欧盟反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼制度的主要内容。主要包括原则、主体制度、证据开示规则和其他配套制度四个方面,其中也涉及到成员国竞争主管机关的行政决定或者法院的裁决的认定效力、诉讼时效等方面的规定。第四章是欧盟反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼制度对我国的启示。通过立法和司法两个方面对我国该制度的现状进行了描述,并分析了其中所存在的问题:诉权主体范围太过狭窄,间接购买者不能诉;证据制度加重了垄断行为受害人的举证责任;民事赔偿范围不能完全弥补垄断行为受害人所受之损失;配套制度缺乏可操作性。鉴于此,本文为完善我国的反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼制度提出了几点建议,即确立间接购买者的诉权主体资格、证据制度上对垄断行为受害人适当倾斜、确立完全赔偿原则、建立有效的反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼配套制度。基于以上思路,本文通过一般理论、历史演进、主要内容和对我国的启示四个方面对反垄断民事损害赔偿诉讼进行了制度层面的研究,以期对我国完善相关制度提供理论支撑。
[Abstract]:Anti-monopoly civil damages litigation is an important way of antimonopoly private execution, which not only makes up for the inherent defects of public enforcement, but also greatly stimulates the enthusiasm of private individuals to file antitrust civil damages litigation. At present, all countries are vigorously promoting the construction of the system of antimonopoly civil damages litigation, among which, The EU Directive No. 2014 / 104 (hereinafter referred to as "Directive No. 2014 / 104") issued on December 5, 2014, concerning the rules of damages litigation against the competition law of the EU and its member states, is an example. China's latest legislation in this field is the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on the Application of Law in handling Civil disputes caused by Monopoly, which came into effect on June 1, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "some issues"). But the effect of its implementation has not been satisfactory. Therefore, our country pays more and more attention to the study and reference of the relevant system rules. The development of the European Union's antitrust civil damages litigation shows the same characteristics as our country, and it is very worthy of our country to learn. The main contents of this paper are as follows: the first chapter is the general theory of antitrust civil damages litigation. First of all, it points out that the antitrust civil damages litigation defined in this paper is narrowly interpreted and compared with this system in civil law. Secondly, through the negative externality of monopoly, the public goods of antimonopoly civil damage compensation litigation and the congenital defect of public implementation, the necessity of constructing the system is demonstrated. Finally, the theory of public choice, government capture, rational choice and information asymmetry are used to explain the theoretical basis of the system. The second chapter is the historical evolution of the anti-monopoly civil damages litigation system in the European Union. This paper traces the origin of EU antitrust civil damages litigation from the aspects of legislation and practice, and then, through legislative combing, shows the EU's determination to push forward the antimonopoly civil damages litigation system step by step. The third chapter is the main content of EU antitrust civil damages litigation system. It mainly includes four aspects: principle, subject system, rules of discovery of evidence and other supporting systems, which also involve the provisions of the administrative decisions of the competition authorities of member States or the determination effect of court decisions, the limitation of action and so on. The fourth chapter is the enlightenment to our country of EU anti-monopoly civil damages litigation system. This paper describes the current situation of this system in China through legislation and judicature, and analyzes the existing problems: the scope of the subject of the right of action is too narrow, the indirect purchaser can not sue; The evidence system has aggravated the burden of proof of the victim of monopoly behavior; the scope of civil compensation cannot completely compensate for the loss suffered by the victim of monopoly act; and the supporting system lacks maneuverability. In view of this, this paper puts forward several suggestions for perfecting our country's antitrust civil damage compensation litigation system, that is, to establish the subject qualification of the indirect purchaser's right of action, to establish the principle of complete compensation in the system of evidence in favor of the victim of monopoly behavior. Establish an effective antitrust civil damages suit supporting system. Based on the above ideas, this paper, through the general theory, the historical evolution, the main content and the enlightenment to our country, has carried on the system research to the antitrust civil damage compensation lawsuit, in order to provide the theory support to our country consummate the related system.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D95;DD912.29

【参考文献】