Mechanism Of Anti-monopoly Public Interest Litigation

With the social and economic development, a large number of monopoly cases continue to emerge. Due to the need of reality, the anti-monopoly public interest litigation as a new type of litigation is increasingly a cause for concern. The anti-monopoly public interest litigation by the state organ, public organization or personal assault, and possibly against national interests, social and public interests, not specific people or organizations the benefit of monopolistic behavior litigation system. It has the following characteristics:the diversity of forms of litigation the purpose of public welfare, litigation, extensive prosecution of the main results have significant preventive. China’s "anti-monopoly law" and Article50of the specific provisions for the establishment of private antitrust litigation mechanism, but no judicial relief procedures, only53provides for administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation rights, lack of the victim to bring an administrative litigation and civil litigation the general procedural requirements, which will lead to the difficulties of judicial practice, thereby affecting the implementation of the effect of the anti-monopoly law.Chinese anti-monopoly public interest litigation to really carried out, from the practical problems and practical summary view, legislative breakthrough is the source of all the river. First, the understanding of the "directly interested party" in the legislation. China’ sthree major procedural law, without exception, require theplaintiff to establish with the specific demands of adirect legal relationship of rights and obligations.’Review of the Court, are to follow that basic principle. This is to limit the abuse of the right to appeal, save litigation and judicial resources, reduce the social cost of dispute mediation, is very beneficial. But the principle is opposed to the anti-monopoly public interest litigation has become a direct stumbling block. The law of our country should learn from foreign experiences on anti-monopoly legislation to give the private, industry associations, consumer organizations and other social organizations, relevant state institutions such as the check organs plaintiff’s qualifications. In addition, the traditional civil law the plaintiff must bear the strict burden of proof, but in the antitrust lawsuit, the law should make a decision in favor of the plaintiff, apply to non-fault principle and the principle of burden of proof upside down. Monopoly disputes the parties to the lack of reciprocity, but also through the legal implementation of the delay of payment, legal fees reduced or remitted to take certain incentives to protect the victims of the actual possibility of the exercise of their rights and the enthusiasm to maintain the prosecution.