Research On Anti-Mnopoly Public Interest Litigation

Regarding the enactment of anti-monopoly law as a watershed in China,earth-shaking changes have taken place in the antitrust situation. With the deeperrecognition in antimonopoly law and the awareness of rights and the preservation ofsocial public interests, more and more citizens and enterprises, especially those whosedirect interests are violated by monopoly behavior, hoping that they could participate inthe anti-monopoly activities to fight against the illegal behavior and realize the remedyof their rights. According to the anti-monopoly law, the monopoly implementationmechanism is mainly relied on executive approach, and the situation where criminalliability should be hold is sparely regulated. However, it isn’t regulated some measuresfor public participation, only affirms the civil liability of the monopoly offenders in theArticle50Law. As a newly implementing measure, the antitrust public interest litigationconforming to the trend of era and meeting the needs of the reality is seriouslyconcerned by the judicial field.The antitrust public interest litigation allows that when the invasion of beneficialbehavior is happened or some kind of expected damage is threatened, the marketparticipants such as natural person, legal person and unincorporated organization, publicinterests groups can bring the suit to the jurisdictional court in order to protect theinterests of our country. Because of its own special character and system design, it hasthe unique advantage in antitrust implementation. Firstly, the antitrust public interestlitigation has met the needs of ‘social standard’ in the antimonopoly law. In reverse, thelatter can protect the public interests efficiently from the former. The relationshipbetween the two is in a perfect harmony. Secondly, the antitrust public interest litigationhas broken the tradition of civil law which needs the direct interests. It not only allowsthe natural person, legal person, and unincorporated organization, public interestsgroups to initiate a litigation to the antitrust action, but also trying to motivate the publicto fight against the antitrust action as much as possible. Thirdly, by using hybrid classaction, it can save the lawsuit resources and increase the efficiency. Fourthly, the designof evidence mobilizes the enthusiasm of the complaint and shows the incline protectionfor the weak. It is more suitable to deal with the great disparity in strength between thetwo parties as well.On the premise of antitrust litigation system, the author mainly used the empirical and method of comparison to consider inspiration of the system of our country. Thenanalyzing the shortage of litigation mode, complete it and reform it. And to makes up asuitable procedure which contained a series of supporting measures. The whole essaycan be divided as following five parts.In the first part, the author analyzed the background and meaning of the topic. Alsothe summary of documents and the study method and context have been shown.In the second part, on the premise of the understanding of antitrust litigationdevelopment process, the author elaborated its connotation and conceptcomprehensively, revealing the special attributes of antitrust litigation to analyze itstheoretical basis.In the third part, the author gave an introduction and compared the British andAmerican legal system, getting the inspiration for the construction in antitrust litigation.In the fourth part, the author analyzed the integration between the anti-monopolylaw and public interest litigation, giving a valued analysis and emphasizing thenecessary on the engagement between public interest litigation and anti-monopolyaction.In the fifth part, from the reference of experience in foreign countries, under theconsideration of the national conditions and the construction of antitrust litigation whichcontained the mode selection, the limitation of the plaintiff qualification, the allocationof the burden of proof and encouraging mechanism, the author gave some preliminaryobservations.