Comparative Study Of China And Australia’s Antitrust Legal Liability System

After more than ten years of anti-monopoly practice,the problem of China’s antitrust legal liability is prominent and urgently needs improvement.The Australian Antitrust Law has been revised many times since its promulgation,and its legal liability system has been perfected.The comparative study of China and Australia’s antitrust legal liability system is of great significance to improving China’s antitrust legal liability system and promoting economic development.By comparison,there are many differences in the civil,administrative,and criminal aspects of antitrust legal liability between the two countries.In civil terms,our administrative subject is not the subject of liability,but not in Australia.The civil injunction is consistent with the function of stopping infringement,but the Australian civil injunction can be applied to the imminent monopoly behavior,while our stopping infringement cannot;Accountability are adopted both private and public representatives,but there are differences in public representative agencies.China’s public representatives are not specific,and Australia is only represented by antitrust enforcement agencies.In terms of administration,China only punishes units,and the persons in charge of the units are not sanctioned,while Australia imposes sanctions on units and persons in charge;In addition,China has a single form of sanctions,mainly relying on a single fine and order to stop illegal acts,while Australia adopts a variety of fine rules,uses adverse publicity orders to restore the market,and creates abolition of personal management company qualifications and administrative injunctions,which are abundant;When claiming responsibilities,our country adopts the administrative discretion model,and the discretion is exercised by antitrust enforcement agencies or administrative monopoly superiors,while Australia adopts a judicial discretion model,and interested parties can pass trial and cross-examination antitrust enforcement agencies.In criminal matters,China only has criminalized bid ? rigging,while Australian criminalization includes price ? fixing,allocating customers,suppliers or territories,restricting outputs in the production and supply chain;In addition,China has adopted an unlimited system of fines,while Australia has a multiple ratio system;In accountability,China’s antitrust agencies do not have investigative powers,and under the Australian exclusive reporting model,antitrust enforcement agencies have the right to collect evidence of monopoly crimes.Finally,it summarizes the deficienciesin China’s antitrust legal liability system and proposes corresponding improvement measures.