反垄断民事诉讼机制的当下选择  

Choices Ad Hoc of Anti-monopoly Civil Litigation

作　　者：邓峰[1,2] Deng Feng

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院 [2]北京大学法律经济学研究中心

出　　处：《中国应用法学》2022年第5期71-87,共17页China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence

摘　　要：起源于美国的反垄断私人执行模式,与其特定的制度安排以及历史时期的制约是密不可分的。私人提起的诉讼替代或补充了反垄断法的公共执行。而二战之后的大陆法系国家则舍弃了反垄断私人执行中的威慑目标,仅仅是在公共执行之外以民事诉讼的方式实现私人损失的赔偿目标,因此属于寻求赔偿式的民事诉讼机制。基于有限的司法经验和实践,我国在选择反垄断民事诉讼机制时首先应考虑选择这一模式,并根据现行《反垄断法》的条文决定采取能动式或是保守式的民事诉讼机制,从而决定是否应当制定实体性规则。这一选择还意味着应对反垄断民事诉讼采用与中央事权相匹配的法院管辖方式。根据反垄断法的特性,应在司法解释中将程序规则,尤其是程序、救济以及法官知识和能力的提高作为重点。Anti-monopoly private enforcement was originated from the U.S.,and was constrained by its unique constitutional arrangements as well as specific historical phase.Private litigations serve as substitutions for or complements of public enforcement.Adopting anti-monopoly law after World War II,civil law countries have abandoned the U.S.model’s deterrence goal and developed a model of civil actions for damages,to achieve a compensatory goal for antitrust infringement.With very little experience,China should take the continental way as a first choice,choose an active or conservative style to make the institutional design of anti-monopoly civil litigation consistent with the newly revised Anti-monopoly Law,and accordingly determine whether the courts should develop its own substantive rules.The choice of antimonopoly litigation style will also determine adopting the jurisdiction allocation to central government level for accepting cases.Following the black letter law of Antimonopoly Law,the courts should mainly focus on designing the procedures,remedies and escalating its knowledge and capability in trials.

关 键 词：反垄断 民事诉讼 私人执行 公共执行 制度设计 

分 类 号：D922.294[政治法律—经济法学] D925.1[政治法律—法学]