Comparative Research On The System Of Procedure Of The Anti-monopoly Administrative Law-enforcement

As procedural rules to standardize the law-enforcement activities of the anti-monopoly law-enforcement agencies, the anti-monopoly administrative enforcement procedure has the characteristics of legality, flexibility, specific subjects and contents of procedures. Anti-monopoly law has different procedures embodied in various countries, which implemented with relatively mature experience in the European Community and the United States anti-monopoly legislation and administrative enforcement procedures. Although the two settings in the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies are different, for example, the EC is led by the European Community Trade Commission administrative law-enforcement process model, while the United States by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division enforcement in the double parallel mode of administrative enforcement procedures. However, the anti-monopoly administrative enforcement procedure can be divided into basic steps:filing, investigation, trial and decision.during these stages, both from the specificity of the anti-monopoly law enforcement procedures, giving the discretion of the agencies to accept the enterprises'reconciliation promise, taking provisional measures, requesting assistance etc. it also concerns about the protection of the public interest, openness of law enforcement procedures and protection of the rights of the parties. Because of the differences in conditions and legislative background, the application of specific measures, also show some differences, the United States put more emphasis on the involvement of the judicial process and the pursuit of efficiency, and more strictness to the effectiveness of hearing than the EC.China has established an executive-led anti-monopoly law-enforcement model, the perfection of law-enforcement procedures is essential for the implementation of anti-monopoly law. But due to the influence of lacking legislative and practical experience in the anti-monopoly, our administrative enforcement procedure not only has showed a "gap" phenomenon systematically, but also in some specific measures and the protection of rights of parties is not completed, even indicating the phenomenon of lack of specific measures. combined with these problems, we should pay attention to the experience of Europe and America and make up for the disadvantages:on the whole, we should include the establishment of a set of filing, investigation, hearing and adjudication stages of such a complete monopoly of administrative enforcement procedures system; On the specific measures, we should make more detailed provisions of the vested hearing process systems, reconciliation process system and the linkage with the judicial process, in order to avoid "soft constraints" to the law-enforcement agencies, to effectively guaranteeing the openness of we should introduce the system of provisional measures, and make strict regulations for its application conditions and deadlines.