Huang Yong: First anniversary of the implementation of the judicial interpretation of the Anti-Monopoly LawThere is a long way to go to break through the “blank zone”
(Source: "Legal Daily"Date:2013-05-29 Reporter: Jiang Anjie）
Huang Yong,Professor, doctoral supervisor,Current Director of the Competition Law Center of the w88 casino,Deputy Leader of the Expert Advisory Group of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of the State Council,Concurrently serves as the executive director of the Economic Law Research Society of the China Law Society, a member of the Academic Committee of the Beijing Law Society, an arbitrator of the China International Economic and w88 Arbitration Commission, and an arbitrator of the Beijing Arbitration Commission, etc.
The formulation and implementation of judicial interpretations of antitrust laws,Effectively resolved the antitrust civil litigation process“Nothing to rely on”'s blank status,Further refinement and explanation of Article 1 of the Antitrust Law50General provisions of Article,Not only makes the people's courts at all levels more disciplined in judicial practice,w88 online sports betting also clarifies the path for ordinary market entities, including general operators and consumers, to seek judicial relief under antitrust laws by filing civil lawsuits.
2012Year5month8日,The Supreme People's Court issued the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Caused by Monopolistic Behaviors",w88 online sports betting has attracted widespread attention from all walks of life. in one year,Whether this judicial interpretation has played the important role originally expected?How does w88 online sports betting work in practice?What new problems have arisen?What is the future trend of antitrust civil litigation in my country?Reporter interviewedProfessor Huang Yong, Director of the Competition Law Center of the w88 casino。
Professor Huang Yong is a well-known expert on antitrust law in China,Currently serves as deputy leader of the Expert Advisory Group of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of the State Council. He has long been involved in the formulation of antitrust laws and supporting antitrust regulations. since2008Since the Supreme People’s Court started drafting anti-monopoly civil judicial interpretations,Professor Huang Yongand his leadershipCompetition Law Center of w88 casinoNot only participated in previous discussions and arguments on relevant drafts and suggestions,And actively follow up after the judicial interpretation is implemented,Research and analyze various antitrust cases handled by the People’s Court,Provide suggestions and suggestions to the Supreme People’s Court.
The implementation of judicial interpretations of the Anti-Monopoly Law has had a significant impact
Reporter:The first anniversary of the implementation of my country’s first judicial interpretation of antitrust law,In your opinion,How is the effect?
Huang Yong:The formulation and implementation of the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Caused by Monopolistic Behaviors",Effectively resolved the antitrust civil litigation process“Nothing to rely on”'s blank status,Further refinement and explanation of Article 1 of the Antitrust Law50General provisions of Article,Not only makes the people’s courts at all levels more disciplined in judicial practice,w88 online sports betting also clarifies the path for ordinary market entities, including general operators and consumers, to seek judicial relief under antitrust laws by filing civil lawsuits. This is reflected in the judicial interpretation after the implementation,The number of antitrust civil litigation cases accepted by the people's court system is growing very fast.
Accepted nearly a hundred antitrust civil litigation cases last year,Bi2008The total number of such cases accepted by the People's Court since the implementation of the Anti-Monopoly Law in 2008 and before the implementation of the judicial interpretation is even greater. The increase in the number of cases is also due to other factors,For example, market entities have a deeper and deeper understanding of antitrust laws, etc.,But the promulgation of judicial interpretation is undoubtedly a very important reason,Because w88 online sports betting clearly tells market entities how to safeguard their rights by filing civil lawsuits in court. Not only has the number of cases jumped,The quality of cases accepted is also changing,There are many cases that have become a hot topic of social concern,Some of these cases have even become hot topics in the international industry. For example, the famous cases between Qihoo and Tencent, Huawei and American wireless technology companies, etc.
In short,Looking through this year’s judicial practice,The People’s Court has a team of highly professional judges,They can master the basic spirit and basic principles of antitrust law in a very short period of time,Then apply w88 online sports betting to the trial practice of specific cases through your own precise legal literacy,Admirable.
Related issues in judicial interpretation of antitrust laws
Reporter:What are the limitations and obvious shortcomings of this judicial interpretation?
Huang Yong:Some problems existed at the beginning of the formulation of this judicial interpretation. Such as,This judicial interpretation does not involve the connection between antitrust civil litigation and antitrust administrative enforcement,Especially for what may happen in the future“Subsequent litigation”Question. This includes a series of questions:When a civil subject goes to the court to request civil damages based on the administrative ruling of the anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement agency,How does the court treat the administrative ruling or fact finding that has been made by the administrative agency?w88 online sports betting is another comprehensive review,Still directly accept the administrative agency’s determination of facts?If you directly accept the ruling of the administrative agency, there may be problems such as inconsistent evidence requirements between administrative investigation and court hearing of civil cases. at the same time,What channels do the people's courts use to obtain evidence materials already in the hands of administrative agencies when necessary to hear cases??Whether there is a need for further coordination between damage compensation in antitrust civil cases and administrative penalty measures already taken by administrative agencies?Wait.
On the other hand,There are also some problems that arise during the implementation of this judicial interpretation. Such as in cases of abuse of dominant market position,Whether the plaintiff’s burden of proof is too heavy,The issue of how to allocate the burden of proof more fairly and reasonably between the plaintiff and the defendant; in cases of vertical resale price maintenance,w88 online sports betting is necessary to further clarify the relevant trial principles, the transformation of the burden of proof, and the acquisition of evidence; there have been court rulings that did not apply the Anti-Monopoly Law for the public interest by applying the provisions of Article 15, Paragraph 4, of the Anti-Monopoly Law. This judgment triggered widespread social controversy,This requires further refinement and regulation of various aspects of Article 15 of the Anti-Monopoly Law“Not applicable”In the cases of Articles 13, 14 and 16,Especially when Article 15, Paragraph 4 is in the public interest and the Anti-Monopoly Law is not applicable,Should be further clarified“Social public interest”15066_15073
The direction of improving my country’s antitrust civil litigation
Reporter:With the further implementation of my country’s Anti-Monopoly Law,What other aspects need to be improved?
Huang Yong:First,Pay attention to the reasonable sharing of the burden of proof.“A lawsuit is based on evidence”,The implementation of judicial interpretations determines the basic framework of the evidence system for civil litigation under my country’s Anti-Monopoly Law,But the specific details need to be further clarified and improved,In particular, the issue of how to distribute the burden of proof more fairly between the plaintiff and the defendant,w88 online sports betting needs to be reasonably balanced by taking into account the difficulty of the plaintiff in providing evidence in antitrust cases. Following“Who advocates,Who gives evidence”Based on the basic civil evidence principles,w88 online sports betting is also necessary to allocate the burden of proof more reasonably according to the needs of the case under special circumstances,At the same time, w88 online sports betting is clear under what circumstances the court can take the initiative to collect evidence according to its authority.
Secondly,Clear the calculation method for damages in antitrust civil cases,This is an urgent question. Currently,No matter who is involved,Even the courts handling the case are faced with the problem of not knowing how to calculate the damage caused by monopoly violations to the parties. There is no way to calculate the amount of damage,The court cannot award compensation,Therefore, the significance of civil litigation will be greatly reduced,The parties will lose their willingness to sue and defend their rights. In this regard,The EU’s opinions are worth learning and learning from.
Third,Integrate industry experts and economic methods into the court case process. In Antitrust Civil Litigation,Involving matters such as relevant market definition, judgment of market structure and operation, behavioral performance and impact, and assessment of damage compensation,Judges are limited by their professional knowledge,w88 online sports betting is often impossible to understand and judge accurately. In this case,Industry experts and economic experts with professional knowledge can well help fact finders accurately understand and grasp relevant facts. EU and its member states,Including courts from Britain, France and Germany,They all incorporate the opinions of economists or industry experts into the process of reviewing cases in different ways,Listen to the experts.
Fourth,Strengthen the judicial interpretation of the substantive laws of antitrust laws. The first judicial interpretation of antitrust law focuses on procedural issues,But w88 online sports betting doesn’t involve much on entity issues. But,The existing antitrust law provisions are very abstract,The antitrust law itself is highly complex,Contains numerous exemptions and exclusions. Therefore,The next step should be to further strengthen the formulation of procedural rules,Strengthen the refinement and clarity of entity rules. A particularly prominent issue currently is the clarification of some applicable exceptions stipulated in the Anti-Monopoly Law.
Finally,Administrative law enforcement and court justice should strengthen mutual coordination. This judicial interpretation does not involve the connection between antitrust civil litigation and antitrust administrative enforcement,Therefore,Many issues remain to be further clarified.
Attachment: Original report link:
http://epaper.legaldaily.com.cn/fzrb/content/20130529/Articel09001GN.htm
