Research On The System Of Implementation Of Private Anti-monopoly Laws

Since the Anti-monopoly Law was enacted in2007, our country had made a significantprogress in anti-monopoly work. In the aspect of legislation, the relevant departments havedeveloped a series of implementing rules and departmental regulations; In the lawenforcement level, the National Development Commerce Department and SAIC respectivelyhave made remarkable achievements. However, we began late in the anti-monopoly work,there are still differences on the ideas of anti-monopoly law among our legislature, lawenforcing departments, academic circles and business circles. And these differences are alsoreflected the different attitudes towards the implementation of the system of privateanti-monopoly laws. The Article50of Anti-monopoly Law establishes the initialimplementation of the system of private anti-monopoly law, but the provisions of theprinciple can not effectively guide the implementation of private anti-monopoly laws. So, theSupreme Court issued Regulations concerning Issues Application of The Law of CivilDisputes Caused by Monopoly on May8,2012. The judicial interpretation has furtherimproved the implementation of the system of private anti-monopoly laws, but there is stillinsufficient. Private implementation of the system runs with difficulty in our country.The article2of Judicial Explanation of Anti-monopoly Law establishes theimplementation of private anti-monopoly way—the direct action mode. According to thispiece of article, this thesis analyzes the system of private anti-monopoly laws. Throughcomparative study, the modes of private anti-monopoly laws include the following two ways:one is the direct action mode as the representative of the United States and the other is Japanas the representative of the pre-trial resolution mode. The direct action mode adapts to theneeds of American social reality and promotes the development of the implementation of thesystem of private anti-monopoly law.Although there are some advantages in the pre-trialdecision mode, but it can not avoid suppression of the suspects in the objectiveimplementation. Without exception, Japan has difficult time on this road. Therefore, the thesisselects these two countries as the objects of comparative study and proposesrecommendations to improve the implementation of the system of private anti-monopoly law.In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this thesis includes the following fourparts: The first part is "the general knowledge of implement the system of privateanti-monopoly law". The concept, nature, classification and significance of the system ofprivate antitrust laws are introduced, laying the theoretical foundation for the analysis below.The second part is about "the status quo and evaluation of China’s anti-monopoly privatesystem implementation". The author analyzes the system of private anti-monopoly law byintroducing our existing legislation and administration. Regarding the article2of JudicialExplanation of Anti-monopoly Law as the starting point, this thesis will analyze thedisadvantages of anti-monopoly private system and then make a conclusion that our countryneeds to complete the system.The third part is about "comparing American and Japanese implementation". Ourcountry can get the inspiration from the study of these two countries’ anti-monopoly law.The fourth part is about the "perfect proposal to implement the system of anti-monopolylaw". On the basic of the above studies, regarding the article2of Judicial Interpretation ofAnti-monopoly law as a core, this thesis gives some suggestions on the coherence ofadministrative law enforcement, anti-monopoly private system, civil system, the form ofjudicial action and the evidences system.