Study On The Proof And Efficiency Of The Conclusions Of The Public Enforcement Of Antitrust Laws In The Follow-up Enforcement

The mere monopoly behavior relying solely on the traditional execution of antitrust law can no longer meet the needs of the implementation of antitrust law.When we see the devastation caused by the illegal monopoly on the market competition,we should also see its damage to the legitimate rights of business operators and consumers.These damages are urgently needed through the private enforcement of antitrust laws(mainly the Anti-monopoly Law Private litigation)to obtain relief,the need to improve the antitrust law public enforcement conclusion in the private execution of the certificate effect.The conclusion of antitrust law enforcement can be divided into three main types:conclusion of the monopoly to be punished;conclusion of leniency based on the leniency system and the suspension or termination of the investigation decision based on the promise system.The validity of different types of public enforcement findings in private litigation can not be generalized.In the leniency process,participants in the monopoly agreement actively cooperate with public enforcement authorities to provide relevant evidence that will make them first exposed in private litigation and in affirming the validity of lenient treatment of the conclusion in subsequent private enforcement At the same time,it is also necessary to reduce the proportion of compensation for leniently treated monopoly agreement participants in compensation for joint damages so as to encourage more participants in monopoly agreements to expose monopolistic behavior,improve the efficiency of public administration and better protect the victims of monopoly agreements as soon as possible Get compensation.However,the factual and evidence described in the conclusion can provide clues for the successor execution of the plaintiff and cooperate with the use of other evidence to prove the occurrence of the monopoly.The EU,the United States and other countries and regions have successively established the rules for the validity of public enforcement findings in subsequent private enforcement through various legislative and judicial practices,and successively established binding rules or preliminary evidence rules.The advantages of subsequent enforcement lie in alleviating the plaintiffs burden of proof,maintaining the consistency of public-private enforcement and saving judicial resources.However,further discussion is still needed in judicial independence,defendants procedural rights protection and execution error costs.The recognition of the validity of the conclusion of public enforcement of antitrust law in subsequent enforcement does not mean that it denies the independence of the judiciary.When a public execution conclusion can not be re-examined in the normal legal way,and the administration has been adequately protected in the previous public execution procedures In the case of relative rights,the conclusion of the public administration should have certain force,and in the absence of evidence to the contrary,the validity of the public enforcement conclusion shall be endorsed.In recognition of the limited force of public enforcement conclusion,it does not hinder the success of the court to determine the facts of the case,with new evidence and facts,based on new evidence and facts to determine whether the act in violation of anti Monopoly Law.Under the current legal system in our country,the conclusion of antitrust law's public execution is presumed to be true in subsequent litigation,but can be overturned in case of contrary evidence.In other words,the conclusion of the antitrust law enforcement is presumed to be true without being overthrown,and the occurrence of monopolistic behavior can be proved in subsequent civil litigation.Nowadays,there are more and more antitrust civil lawsuits in our country,but there are only few people who win the lawsuit.The result of the enforcement given to the antitrust public enforcement authorities in the subsequent civil litigation can effectively alleviate this embarrassing situation.In the meantime,the rights of the civil subject under the monopoly act are promptly remedied,at the same time,the deterrent force and effectiveness of the antitrust law should be increased so as to promote the development of the private enforcement of antitrust law in our country.