The Study Of The Burden Of Proof In Anti-monopoly Civil Litigation Case

Since its promulgation, anti-monopoly civil litigation cases are on the rise inrecent years. However, generally speaking, quantity of such cases is still very smalland in most cases the failure of the plaintiff is inevitable. Until now, there is only onecase with the victory of the plaintiff. All indicates certain problem in the lawsuit ofanti-monopoly civil litigation cases.The essay mainly deals with the empirical analysis of anti-monopoly civillitigation cases. On the basis of relative theory of burden of proof, the author foundthe inefficiency of the burden of proof in anti-monopoly civil litigation cases, aimingto put forward with some suggestions for the betterment of the burden of proof inanti-monopoly civil litigation cases based on the study of the burden of proof of othercountries.Excepting introduction and conclusion, the body part is composed of5parts.Part1mainly investigates the current situation of anti-monopoly civil litigationcases, indicates the main arguments in the essay and further analyzes the maincharacteristics of anti-monopoly civil litigation cases comparing with traditional civillitigation cases, pointing out that burden of proof in anti-monopoly civil litigationcases is different from that of traditional.Part2deals with the analysis of theories of the burden of proof in anti-monopolycivil litigation cases. It demonstrates main factors of consideration comparing with inefficiency and principles to be complied in the burden of rule in anti-monopoly civillitigation cases, based on the study of some theories of the burden of proof.Part3deals with analysis of the rule of the burden of proof with detailed analysisof burden of proof of issues of monopoly agreement and abuse of a dominate marketposition, it indicates that certain rules are against plaintiffs, paving the way forproposal in the later part of essay.Part4deals with application of the burden of proof in anti-monopoly civillitigation cases in areas outside of China. With comparison of measures of easeburden of proof of plaintiff in US and Japan, it illustrates that experience in othercountries can be learnt for the improvement of the rules of proof in anti-monopolycivil litigation cases.Part5presents suggestions for the burden of proof in anti-monopoly civillitigation cases, which is made up of3subparts. Subpart1.Partial inversion of theburden of proof.2.ease the burden of proof of plaintiff3.Support for civil litigationcases from anti-monopoly administration institutes and courts. Through thesemeasures, the plaintiff and defendant shall stay in a equal basis in courts, promotingsmooth operation of anti-monopoly civil litigation cases.