Study On The Incentives Of Anti-monopoly Private Litigation

In view of the effect since the implementation of the Anti-monopoly Law is notideal, as well as the introduction of a civil action to explain the context of theSupreme Court, the author as the starting point of incentive for private litigation,advocates of the relevant system to build not only reflected in the antitrust theimprovement of the law substantive law, we should be concerned about theenthusiasm of private sector participation in law enforcement, make improvements,and that the private facilitate procedural law in relation to private relief, economicrelief channels. To this end, in order to antitrust satisfied with the effectiveness of thelegislative goals, we should pay attention to the incentive function of the antitrustlaws. The incentives of the antitrust laws give legal subjects rights, interests, improvetheir ability to seek Legal remedies, reduce the cost of legal remedies and relief risk tostimulate the antitrust civil litigation activities occur, so that the subject be encouragedto actively participate in Anti-monopoly Law implementation. Specifically, the realityof our country, I propose to double punitive damages established in the antitrustprivate action, reducing the burden of the plaintiff’s burden of proof, and to reducelitigation costs.Firstly, the incentives function of the law, a general introduction of antitrustemphasis on the importance and significance of incentives to build on this basis.During the inspection on the basis of the anti-monopoly law practice at home andabroad, private litigation incentives. The status quo of China’s private litigationincentives based on the analysis, I propose the recommendations of the privatelitigation incentives in order to promote the anti-monopoly law private cause of action. In this paper, use of a comparative analysis of the normative analysis and normativeanalysis of research methods, the text is divided into four parts:The first part, I believe that the antitrust laws should be given adequate attentionto the incentive function of the law, must take into consideration the arrangement ofthe legal system more generally, the incentive for private litigation, a view to theimplementation of the anti-monopoly law to achieve satisfactory effectiveness.Incentives are not only to promote private initiative to participate in the civil action,so that the main players in the market to become the main force in the anti-monopoly,but also to foster a culture of competition, to shape the rules of competition.Furthermore, the establishment of private litigation incentives, increase people’s trustand support of the anti-monopoly law, the promotion of market player’s respect thelaw is still law, love the law, increase the participation of the people for the law andlegal operation of, conducive to the realization of the anti-monopoly the effectivenessof the method.The second part analyzes the design of the national private litigation incentives,mainly in the economic interests based incentives. The intention of the law is toreduce the risk of private litigation by reducing the cost of private litigation, toencourage private market players into the court. Specifically, the incentives from thefollowing three aspects of the system to precede, the punitive damages system, reducethe cost of litigation system; reduce the burden of proof system, the author carried outa detailed analysis and presentation.The third part, I focus combined with our anti-monopoly law and relevantjudicial interpretations, the status quo of China’s private litigation incentives, pointingout that the main factors restricting China’s anti-monopoly law to implement the effect is reflected in damages, the burden of proof allocation, litigation Cost for the threeaspects.The fourth part, the author based on the status of the Chinese anti-monopoly lawcivil remedy system, civil litigation as a starting point, research from the damages theamount of responsibility, sharing of the cost of litigation and the allocation of theburden of proof on the design legally feasible, economic advantageous relief programto encourage private litigation to carry out.