Research On The Burden Of Proof In Abusing The Market Dominant Civil Proceedings

During the ten years of the implementation of China's anti-monopoly law,reports of anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies issuing “high-price” tickets were commonplace,but cases where the plaintiffs succeeded in judicial trials were rare.In view of this situation,this paper selects the most common abuse of market dominance in anti-monopoly civil litigation as a sample of the study,analyzes the existing judgments on abuse of dominance in civil lawsuits in China,summarizes issues in judicial practice,and combines civil litigation evidence.Responsibility basic theory,put forward sound suggestions.In addition to the introduction and conclusions,the text consists of three parts:The first chapter,starting from the current civil cases of abuse of market dominance in China,summarizes the content of 19 sample judgments,showing that the plaintiff's winning rate in abuse dominant status litigation is almost zero.Through further empirical analysis,Most of the reasons for losing the lawsuit are that they cannot be proved.The fundamental point is that it proves to be difficult and the burden of proof on the plaintiff is heavy.However,the burden of proof and the burden of proof are closely related to the theory of burden of proof.Therefore,the basic theory of burden of proof needs to be introduced.In this paper,the principle of the distribution of burden of proof and the recent development,combined with the theory of the special nature of anti-monopoly civil litigation,discusses the legitimate justification and technical support for the special distribution of the burden of proof in the anti-monopoly civil litigation field.In order to test whether the anti-monopoly-related legislation is improper or incomplete,the plaintiff's "provide no evidence" and "zero-yield rate" status,and systematically review the rules of burden of proof in the abuse of market dominance status,pointing out that China's anti-monopoly regulations have A number of breakthrough regulations have been formulated to reduce the burden of proof of the plaintiff,such as the presumption of dominance,self-recognition information that can be used as evidence,and utility companies can directly determine the dominant position.Therefore,the formulation of new breakthrough special rules or systems is difficult to break the plight of the plaintiff's "zero success rate".It is necessary to examine the application of evidence rules in judicial practice.The second chapter combines 19 sample cases to discuss the status quo of the applicable evidence rules.Through case studies,summarize the problems of these rules in practice: the presumption rules do not form a systematic analysis path,and there are disagreements on the applicable effects;the scope of exemption rules is limited in scope of application,and the disagreement of the burden of proof is exempt;when self-certification is used as evidence,it Probability is limited.After further analysis of the case,it was found that the court applied the different tendencies in the process of applying the evidence rules and directly decided whether the outcome of the case was a losing or successful case.When the court understood the general allocation of the burden of proof in the civil lawsuit,the plaintiff lost;and the court When it is applied as a provision that tends to relieve the plaintiff's burden of proof,the plaintiff can still fulfill the burden of proof of the relevant proof.It can be shown that the ramifications affecting the operation of the anti-monopoly civil litigation system are not due to lack of special proof rules or design deficiencies.It is that there are various misunderstandings and disagreements in the judicial practice in the special provisions to reduce the plaintiff's burden of proof.Therefore,it is necessary to step out of the path of blind foreign countries' foreign evidence and the rules and systems for the burden of proof,to reflect on and discuss differences and problems in current judicial practice,and to clarify the justifications of these special rules in light of China's current legal legal basis and legal system background.,and then optimize the current evidence rules.On the basis of the above two chapters,the third chapter,based on the optimization of the provision of proof,proposes to improve the burden of proof in civil litigation of abuse of market dominance.The comparative analysis of the extraterritorial experience of the presumption rule shows that the root cause of problems in our country's presumption rule is the improper result in the transplantation process.Therefore,it is necessary to modify the market dominance presumption rule.In the choice of legislative style,we need to correct the current two The articles respectively provide the stipulated mode,establish the mode of a single clause,remove the expression of "may" in the content selection,or add a clear definition of article 19 to overturn the subject as the defendant,clearly clarify the application effect of the inference rule;the scope of application of the immunity rule is narrow,and the exemption rule does not have the effect of exempting the burden of proof from the plaintiff.It discusses several aspects including actual needs,legislative choices,academic analysis and scope,and applicable conditions,proposes that the decision of the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency can be included in the scope of application,and clearly decides on the administration of justice.The effectiveness of the preliminary evidence in the procedure;on the issue of the lack of self-recognition information,through the discussion on how to improve the self-recognition information evidence acquisition method,it is proposed that the plaintiff can be clearly defined from the perspective of improving the self-certification data acquisition method.The right to apply for the court to obtain evidence.