On The Distribution Of Burden Of Proof In China's Anti-monopoly Civil Litigation

In view of the particularity of antitrust cases,China issued the Anti-monopoly Judicial interpretation in 2012,which makes special provisions on the distribution of burden of proof.However,with the further development of antitrust judicial practice,it is found that in antitrust civil litigation,the ambiguity,unreasonable distribution rules of burden of proof and unsatisfactory practical effect are the important factors for the plaintiff to lose the burden of proof too much.Therefore,this paper will discuss how to optimize the rules of burden of proof in anti-monopoly civil action and how to improve the effect of its implementation,and put forward reasonable suggestions to reduce the burden of proof for the plaintiff and improve the possibility of its success.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the full text is divided into four chapters.The introduction part mainly combs the research purpose and significance of this paper,the current research situation at home and abroad and the main research methods used in this paper.The first chapter mainly introduces the basic theory of the distribution of the burden of proof in anti-monopoly civil litigation,through which it points out that it is necessary to adjust the distribution of the burden of proof in anti-monopoly civil litigation because of the complexity and professionalism of monopoly cases and the gap' ability to prove evidence.The second chapter introduces the legal provisions of the distribution of the burden of proof in anti-monopoly civil litigation,and amends the basic principle of applying "who claims,who proves ",which reduces the burden of proof for the plaintiff by reversing the burden of proof and presumption.At the same time,through the cases in practice to find out the problems existing in the distribution of burden of proof in China's anti-monopoly civil litigation,on the one hand,because of the unclear and unreasonable rules of burden of proof distribution,the plaintiff's burden of proof is too heavy,on the other hand,the court does not follow the special distribution rules in favor of the plaintiff and too conservative attitude in the anti-monopoly case,which causes the plaintiff's burden of proof is too heavy.The third chapter,through the study of the relevant legislative provisions on the distribution of the burden of proof in foreign antitrust civil litigation,summarizes the relevant experience of foreign countries in the distribution of the burden of proof,finds its commonness and advantages,and provides a reference for the improvement of the distribution of the burden of proof in antitrust civil litigation.The fourth chapter puts forward some Suggestions to reduce the burden of proof of the plaintiff.As for the distribution rules of burden of proof in anti-monopoly civil litigation,the first one is to clarify the distribution rules of burden of proof,so as to avoid aggravating the burden of proof for the plaintiff due to unclear legislation.It includes clarifying the principle of liability of anti-monopoly cases and clarifying the provisions of Article 8 of the Judicial Interpretation of Anti-monopoly on the competition effect of monopolistic ACTS.Second,the burden of proof should be reasonably distributed,and the defendant should bear the causal relationship between monopolistic behavior and damage.The relevant legal provisions are detailed,and the burden of proof is reduced from the definition of the relevant market and the provisions of Article 10 of the Antitrust Judicial Interpretation.From the perspective of legal application of the distribution rules of burden of proof,the first is to strengthen the judge's understanding of the Anti-monopoly Law and its judicial interpretation,and correctly apply the relevant provisions.Second,to strengthen the discretion of judges,in anti-monopoly civil litigation,based on the gap between the original defendant and the defendant in economic strength,proof ability and other aspects,they should take the initiative to adjust the distribution of burden of proof according to the authority under certain conditions,to balance the interests of both parties.