The Research On Evidence System Of Anti-monopoly Civil Action

Evidence system is the core of the litigation system, also known as "the backbone of the litigation". Civil Action Evidence System in China is mature gradually, but there are imperfect aspects, especially in the anti-monopoly civil action area. Winning rate of the plaintiff of anti-monopoly civil action in China is rather low, which is caused by the lack of the evidence system types and misallocation of the burden of the proof, and also because the plaintiff’s insufficient evidence led by the complicated and need professional services of anti-monopoly law.Antitrust civil action evidence system consists of evidence types, evidence collecting, proof standard,burden of proof and trial standards. No space to cover them in depth here, this article focuses in asymmetry information of burden proof on both sides and asymmetrical abilities of burden of proof in overseas Antitrust civil action evidence system.First, this article introduces the characters of the action of monopoly agreement, action of abuse of market position and action of concentration of business operators. Second, based on the characters mentioned above, here lays detailed analysis of the evidence types of the anti-monopoly civil action and types of the burden of the proof. Third, new views on the should-be-added evidence styles and should-be-improved burden of proof of the anti-monopoly civil action are brought out by citing and joining anti-monopoly experience in England and Americans and anti-monopoly regulations and recent anti-monopoly civil action case in China.Regarding the evidence styles of the anti-monopoly, traditional evidence styles, like documentary evidence, material evidence and the electronic evidence are presented here. Special emphasis on expert testimony and hearsay evidence which two are undocumented in China evidence system. Analysis of the possibility of application of the two undocumented is made by combining the current law status and the past years’anti-monopoly cases.As to the allocation of the burden of proof, concrete analysis of the characters of action of monopoly agreement and abuse of market position is done in order to ensure the allocation of the burden of proof, that is further proper steps should be taken as one party gets rights of proof and no burden proof is added to the other party. During the process of the action of the burden of proof, parties are allowed to apply for investigation and evidence collection from antitrust cognizant agency.Procedural law is established for the effect implementation of the Substantive law. Evidence system is part of the procedural system. Its effective implementation has an immediate impact on the substantive law. That’s why the design of the evidence system should be reasonable and scientific so as to accelerate the implementation of the antitrust law and protect the due right of the appeal.