The Administrative Monopoly Judicial Relief Research

Fair competition is the heart and soul of the market economy, illegal monopoly andadministrative monopoly seriously jeopardize the markets fairness and competition. Ithas been the biggest obstacle to market economy and a serious breach of the inherentrequirements of the market economy, the rule of law and competitive. Various forms ofadministrative monopoly appear in China recent years, a variety of adverse effects tocivic life and society. According to law’s perspective, how to take advantage of theregulation of the legal means of administrative monopoly becomes an important task ofjurisprudence. It can be found from the past research results of the administrativemonopoly regulations, many regulations of administrative monopoly focusadministrative power, ignoring the use of judicial means to control it. The unsatisfyingfact that over the years the regulation of administrative monopoly little effectivenesswas achieved causes us to think: relying on the executive powers of self-restraint fails toregulate administrative monopoly. Administrative monopoly regulation requires a morescientific means, which neither relies only on the higher administrative authoritiesbound the lower administrative, nor relies on antitrust specialized administrative controlof law enforcement agencies. It should contain judicial relief as an important part.In this paper, a careful reading of the classics and the basis of China’sadministrative monopoly status has been made. An analysis on mature theory, thetypical case, and legislative experience of the two countries, the United States, Russiahas been done to explore the perfect judicial remedy system suitable for China’sadministrative monopoly, in order to provide useful lessons for China’s administrativemonopoly from the level of judicial remedies to make up for gaps related content.The first chapter describes the basic theory of administrative monopoly judicialrelief. It starts from relevant concepts and features, then clarifies the causes and harmsof administrative monopoly, demonstrating the necessity and feasibility of themechanism of administrative monopoly judicial relief.The second chapter introduces the administrative monopoly judicial relief ofRussia and the United States, and its implications for China. The third chapter describes status and defects of administrative monopoly judicialrelief in China, and problems associated with comments.The fourth chapter proposals several recommendations on improving theadministrative monopoly judicial relief mechanism:(a) the abstract administrative act inadministrative monopoly litigation by the scope of the case.(b) expand the scope of theplaintiff’s qualifications;(c) clear under the jurisdiction of the court, set up specialdivisions.(d) burden of proof.(e) explicitly clear legal responsibility.(f) use the form ofan appropriate judgment.