Research On The System Of Anti Monopoly Administrative Hearing

Strengthening antitrust will become the new normal.In order to better complete the professional anti-monopoly tasks,the state’s anti-monopoly law enforcement requirements are also increasing.On the one hand,anti-monopoly itself contains complex economic,technical and legal issues,on the other hand,anti-monopoly involves social public interests,anti-monopoly law is actually the confrontation between popularization and specialization,so it is necessary to give the parties the right to state and defend,in order to ensure the participation of the parties,to achieve the ultimate fairness and justice.As the core system of procedural law,the system of administrative hearing embodies public participation in the process of law enforcement.The anti-monopoly law establishes a special administrative hearing system,which conforms to its dual requirements of public participation and professionalism.At present,China’s anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement mechanism will be the traditional law enforcement agencies and procedures forced to apply in China’s rapid development of anti-monopoly procedure law,resulting in anti-monopoly law and administrative hearing system mismatch,system and development needs do not match the problem.Secondly,China’s anti-monopoly administrative hearing system is still in its infancy,there are no special provisions on the hearing system in anti-monopoly legislation,and in the practice of anti-monopoly investigation,China’s anti-monopoly administrative hearing system is not perfect,in the process of judicial practice,there are many problems that are not suitable,Starting from the analysis of the typical anti-monopoly cases before and after the integration of China’s anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies,the vertical study and combing of the typical anti-monopoly administrative hearing cases since the implementation of the Anti-monopoly Law,the empirical study of the current theory and practice of the application of anti-monopoly administrative hearing dilemma,analysis of the background factors and causes,combined with China’s administrative hearing system structure,summarized the general administrative hearing problems in China.At the same time,on the basis of case analysis,this paper summarizes the problems existing in China’s anti-monopoly administrative hearing system,which not only contain the problems of universality arising from the general administrative hearing of our country,but also include the problems unique to the particularity of anti-monopoly law,including the non-disclosure of the anti-monopoly hearing procedure,the independence of the anti-monopoly hearing organ,and the unsatisfactory effect of the anti-monopoly hearing.On the basis of empirical research and horizontal comparative analysis of the international perspective,the legal provisions and operational effects of anti-monopoly quasi-judicialization leading countries and regions,including the United States,the European Union,Japan and Taiwan,and so on,draw the core view of the basic structure of quasi-judicial anti-monopoly administrative hearing,that is,the administrative organs preside over hearings in a way that enjoys quasi-judicial power,which is more professional and independent,and the administrative hearing procedure more reflects the characteristics of judicialization.From the basic structure of the national and regional administrative hearing system of anti-monopoly quasi-judicialization,this paper leads to the thinking of the reform path of China’s anti-monopoly administrative hearing.After systematically examining the system of anti-monopoly administrative hearing in the mainstream countries and regions of the world,combined with the development of China’s existing anti-monopoly administrative hearing system and the development of quasi-judicialization,this paper puts forward the thinking of quasi-judicial reform in China on the basis of solving the problem.The quasi-judicial reform direction of China’s anti-monopoly administrative hearing should be to determine a professional administrative law enforcement agency,to fix the procedure through the system,and to produce a binding legal effect on the final administrative decision.This will help strengthen the independence of China’s anti-monopoly administrative hearing organs,improve the procedures of the anti-monopoly administrative hearing system,improve the professionalism and independence of the anti-monopoly administrative hearing system,and thus urge anti-monopoly law enforcement to be more legal,reasonable and effective.