The antitrust civil litigation system still needs to be improved
Huang Yong
("Guangming Daily"2011Year5month5日No.2 version)
According to statistics from the Supreme People’s Court,Since2008Year8month1日Since the Anti-Monopoly Law came into effect,Local courts across the country accepted first-instance monopoly civil cases43pieces,Trial conclusion29piece. Civil litigation has become an option for parties seeking antitrust relief,This is not only reflected in the number of cases,It is also reflected in social influence. Since the antitrust law points to monopolistic behavior in the market economy,These behaviors often involve large and important companies in the market,Once these big companies go to the dock,It will become important news in the newspapers,It will also trigger heated discussions among the public.
Antitrust cases are highly technical and professional,Economic and legal issues are intertwined,It has a significant impact on enterprises and industries. With the emergence of a large number of civil litigation cases,Anti-monopoly civil trials have become one of the major challenges faced by the people's courts. In this context,Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Monopoly Civil Dispute Cases recently issued by the Supreme People’s Court(Draft for comments)》(Hereinafter referred to as "Judicial Interpretation Draft"),Open to the public for opinions,It is undoubtedly of important practical significance.
This judicial interpretation is a pioneering legal document in the field of antitrust civil litigation,There are many things to like. For example,The interpretation draft stipulates centralized jurisdiction and special jurisdiction for antitrust civil cases,Limit the courts of first instance to the intermediate people’s courts in key cities such as provincial capitals,Fully reflects the Supreme People's Court's great emphasis on the complexity and professionalism of antitrust cases. Another example,The judicial interpretation draft details the distribution of the burden of proof for different types of cases,A clear distinction is made between monopoly agreement cases and abuse of market dominance cases,Provides that the facts identified in the decision of the antitrust enforcement agency do not need to be proved,It also stipulates that under certain circumstances, the plaintiff may request the court to order the defendant to submit relevant evidence, etc.
On the other hand,Antitrust civil litigation is a large-scale institutional issue,From the experience of various countries,The problem in real cases is far from2011824_11858,Such as jurisdiction, type of plaintiff, relationship between administrative enforcement and court litigation, burden of proof, scope of compensation and statute of limitations, etc. Actually,Whether it is Article 1 of the Anti-Monopoly Law50Principle provisions of Article,Still a draft judicial interpretation20length of article,None of them can cover all aspects of antitrust civil litigation. This is due to the judicial system of our country,It also reflects that we still have a long way to go.
Based on the experience of developed countries under antitrust laws,The average length of complex antitrust civil litigation is four to five years,受害人提起反垄断民事诉讼的成本包括诉讼费、律师费、调查取证费用、专家证人费用等有形的财产付出,Also includes indirect losses that may be incurred as a result of prosecution. at the same time,Plaintiff’s burden of proof for monopolistic behavior,and proof of damages and causation,They are far beyond ordinary civil cases. Strong companies and groups can also effectively evaluate litigation costs and burden of proof;For the majority of small and medium-sized enterprises and consumers,does not have this ability to evaluate.
For this reason,Various countermeasures have been introduced in theory and practice under antitrust laws in various jurisdictions,Including punitive damages system, litigation cost assistance system, group litigation, etc.,These are still missing in my country’s current antitrust civil litigation system,These systems all involve major reforms in my country’s civil litigation system,It is difficult to break through antitrust judicial interpretations.
For our country,It has been more than two years since the Antitrust Law came into effect,But whether it is administrative law enforcement or civil litigation,Compared with developed countries,Still lacking the accumulation and precipitation of cases,Still not much experience. For antitrust civil litigation,The timely introduction of judicial interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court will help solve pressing problems in reality,Also should be seen,The establishment of a complete antitrust civil litigation system still takes time,We still need to continue to explore, learn from and innovate.
(The author is a professor at the w88 casino of Law, w88 casino)
Link:
