反垄断法私人实施制度比较研究-国际法学专业论文.docxVIP

摘 要 法律的生命在于实施，作为我国经济宪法的反垄断法更是如此。反垄断法的 实施可以调动公共与私人两种资源，从而形成公共实施与私人实施两种模式，长 期以来，反垄断法的公共实施一直发挥主导作用，但是近年来许多国家开始意识 到其存在的局限性，而私人实施以其有效性与威慑性构成了对公共实施的有力补 充与促进，因此，反垄断法私人实施制度在世界范围内蓬勃发展。我国亦顺应了 这种潮流，于 2012 年 5 月 8 日颁布了《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》。尽管如此，我国的反垄断法私人实施制度在立法 层面仍不完善，在实践操作层面仍存在许多弊端，因此亟需进一步改进。 为此，本人撰写此文，希望通过比较研究，参考借鉴国外的先进制度，为我 国反垄断法私人实施制度的改进与完善提供些许建议。本文分为四部分，第一部 分为反垄断法私人实施制度概述，从概念界定、比较优势与局限性三个方面做了 基础性论述；第二部分介绍了国外与我国的反垄断法私人实施程序制度，并进行 了比较分析；第三部分介绍了国外与我国的反垄断法私人实施救济方式，并进行 了比较分析；第四部分从程序与救济方式两个方面为我国反垄断法私人实施制度 提出了具体的完善建议。 关键词：反垄断法，私人实施，程序制度，救济方式 Abstract The life of law lies in enforcement, as is the case for anti-monopoly law, economic constitution of China. The enforcement of the anti-monopoly law can mobilize both the public and private resources, thus forming two modes of public and private enforcement. For a long time, the public enforcement of the anti-monopoly law has played a leading role, but in recent years, many countries began to realize its limitations, with its validity and deterrent on public enforcement, private enforcement constitutes a powerful complement and promotion. Therefore, the private enforcement of antitrust flourishes worldwide. To follow the trend, China issued Judicial Interpretation on Monopoly on May 8, 2012. Even so, Chinas private enforcement of anti-monopoly law is still not perfect in the legislative level, there are still many disadvantages in the practice operation level, therefore needs to be further improved. To this end, I wrote this article, in the hope that the comparative study of foreign advanced system could provide some suggestions for the improvement and perfection of our countrys private enforcement of anti-monopoly law. This article is divided into four parts, the first part is the overview of private enforcement of anti-monopoly law, from the aspects of definition, comparative advantages and limitations; The second part introduces the procedure systems of private enforcement of anti-monopoly law at home and abroad, and the