欧盟反垄断公共实施与私人实施的冲突与协调——以宽大申请材料在私人诉讼中的披露问题为例  

On the Conflict and Coordination Between Public Enforcement and Private Enforcement of EU Antitrust Law --A Case Study of the Disclosure of Leniency Material in Private Antitrust Litigation

作　　者：Danciu Florin 朱韵[1] 

机构地区：[1]南京大学法学院

出　　处：《南京大学法律评论》2017年第1期313-327,共15页Nanjing University Law Review

摘　　要：反垄断法的实施机制包括公共实施和私人实施。在任何采取二元实施机制的反垄断司法辖区,公私实施之间的冲突和协调问题均不容忽视,欧盟也不例外。宽大制度,基于其独特的价值功效,对欧盟反垄断法的公私实施都极为重要,也因而引发了强烈的冲突。应否允许卡特尔民事损害赔偿诉讼原告获取竞争执法机构掌握的宽大申请材料成为欧盟反垄断法实施面临的两难问题。对此,欧盟委员会和欧盟法院选择了不同的立场,前者对宽大申请材料给予绝对保护,后者则强调私人诉权的保障。EU第2014/104号指令延续了委员会的做法,但违反了欧盟法中的实效原则,应在坚持公共实施与私人实施同等重要的前提下,进一步完善二者的冲突协调机制。The enforcement mechanisms of anti-trust law include public enforcement and private enforcement. In any antitrust jurisdiction which has established both of the two enforcement mechanisms, the conflict and coordination between them could not be ignored, EU is no exception. Leniency program, with its unique value, is very important for the both public and private implementation of anti-trust law, while strong conflicts are also caused due to this. Whether or not to allow the cartel civil damages litigation plaintiff obtain leniency materials has become a dilemma in the EU antitrust law enforcement. In this regard, the European Commission and the EU Court has adopted different position, the former tends to give the leniency materials absolute protection, while the latter emphasizes the interest of private claimants. EU directive 2014/104 extends the previous standing of the Commission, but violates the principle of effectiveness in EU law. Based on the premise that public enforcement and private enforcement is of equal importance, the conflict coordination mechanism should be further explored.

关 键 词：竞争法 宽大制度 私人实施 公共实施 文件披露 

分 类 号：D922.29[政治法律—经济法学]