Font Size: a A A

A Study On The Administrative Responsibility System Of Abuse Of Dominant Market Position

Posted on:2013-08-11Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:S P WuFull Text:PDF
GTID:2246330371492842Subject:Economic Law
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
The enterprise has a dominant market position (also known as market dominance) has better economic efficiency, should of course be protected by Anti-trust Law, because the economic efficiency of the market is of one the value goals of Anti-trust Laws. However, once the enterprise has a dominant market position to abuse its dominance, in which bound to hinder the other market players free and equal participation in the competition in the market and undermine the freedom, democracy and fair competition order in the market competition, thus violating Anti-trust Law by the pursuit of social equity value of the target. The Anti-trust Law is precisely to maintain market competition order of freedom, democracy and fairness as its mission, while the efficiency of the market economy and achieve social equity. In order to prevent abuse of market dominance, Anti-trust Laws in all nations so as china provide responsibility system including administrative responsibility to regulate market dominance. However, so far, the administrative responsibility system to the abuse of market dominance under the Anti-trust Law in China, can be described as useless. Therefore it is necessary to make a specialized research on the administrative responsibility system of abuse of dominant market position. Moreover, although the economic law scholars in China have launched a more in-depth study on the liability regime on violate the Anti-trust Law, but on one side, the study on abuse of dominant market position of the responsibility system is focused on the civil liability system. Specialized on the administrative responsibility system of abuse of dominant market position is rare. On the other side, the study is focused on the civil liability system, specializing on the administrative responsibility of the system on abuse of market dominance is little. For these reasons, this paper take the "administrative responsibility system on abuse of dominant market position" as a topic. And through the comparative study of the foreign system of administrative responsibility for abuse of dominant market position, expand usefully explored on how to further improve the administrative responsibility system on abuse of dominant market position in China. Look forward to improve the benefit on the legislative and judicial practice in the administrative responsibility system to abuse of dominant market position in China.This article is divided into four parts:The first part, interpret the basic meaning of market dominance and abuse of dominant market position. The so-called dominant market position, also known as market dominance, the operators can control the price, quantity or other trading conditions, or to hinder or affect other undertakings to enter the relevant market capacity in the relevant market. The so-called abuse of dominant market position is an anti-competitive business practices the market dominating enterprises does to maintain or enhance its market position.The second part discusses the legal basis for abuse of dominant market position to assume the administrative responsibility. The reason of abuse of dominant market position should be investigated for administrative responsibility basis based on the following theories:The first is "fair competition theory", means the abuse of dominant market position violated of the principle of fair competition. The second is the "Prohibits the abuse of rights theory", which means the abuse of dominant market position in violated the principle of Prohibition of abuse of rights. The third is the "consumer protection theory", means the abuse of dominant market position against the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, especially on the choice of consumer. Finally,"The Essential Facilities Doctrine", means the abuse of dominant market position is violated the principle of critical facilities of Anti-trust Law.The third part discusses the type of administrative responsibility on abuse of dominant market position. First, I did a comparative study on the form of administrative responsibility of abuse of dominant market position of foreign countries in which market economic legislation is well done. Trying to explore the legislative and practical experience ways that will help improve the form of administrative responsibility of abuse of dominant market position in China. There are a lot of proven forms of administrative responsibility on abuse of market dominance in the world which we can learn from. Such as:"antitrust settlement system","anti-trust administrative guidance system "," antitrust advisory system ", which is most characteristic of Japan’s" exclusion measures command system". Second, explore China’s administrative responsibility in the form set on abuse of dominant market position. Form of administrative responsibility for the abuse of dominant market position in China should include the following:Ordered to enterprises involved in the cessation of the breach; property penalty on enterprises involved in property penalties. Property penalty is mainly divided into two forms:confiscation and fines.Part IV explores the mechanisms of accountability of the administrative responsibility for the abuse of dominant market position. China’s Anti-trust Law enforcement agencies there are "two-tiered multi-agency " system model now. Taking all the constraints of reality into account, we advocated take a "two-step" strategy in the setting of Anti-trust Law enforcement agencies. First of all, determine a existing institutions as the Anti-trust Law enforcement agencies, then transition to a independent Anti-trust Law enforcement agencies. In dealing with the relationship between antitrust law enforcement agencies and industry regulatory bodies, on the one hand, from the legal perspective, we must follow the principle of " higher-level laws better than under the Act", and " general method is better than the special " to strict the application of law. Resource sharing of information between the antitrust enforcement agencies and industry regulatory bodies should coordinate with each other, cooperation, and constraints. Only in this way should we ensure the efficiency and the fairness of the antitrust laws operation system.
Keywords/Search Tags:antitrust laws, dominant market position, abuse of market dominance, administrative responsibility
PDF Full Text Request
Related items