Research On Judicial Application Of H Orizontal Monopoly Agreement Identification Standard

Horizontal monopoly agreement behavior is a kind of common monopoly behavior with great harm.This paper focuses on the judicial application of the identification standard in the trial of monopoly agreement dispute cases.In this paper,14 groups of public litigation samples in Chinese judicial practice are selected to analyze the application of the horizontal monopoly agreement identification standard,sort out the existing problems in the current judicial practice,and put forward corresponding suggestions.In the second chapter,this paper introduces the concept of horizontal monopoly agreement identification standards,including legal provisions and judicial recognition,legal provisions mainly include the relevant provisions of the Anti-monopoly Law and the relevant provisions of the Interim Provisions on the Prohibition of Monopoly Agreement.The judicial determination includes the determination principle and the determination mode.The determination principle consists of the direct illegal principle and the reasonable analysis principle.The determination mode has the analysis framework of "three elements" and "four elements".Chapter three summarizes and analyzes 14 sample cases from the perspective of law application.In terms of structure,according to the application principle of judicial organs,the case is classified and discussed,namely,the case that applies the principle of its own violation,the case that applies the principle of reasonable analysis and other cases.In terms of content,based on the judgment documents,this paper sorts out the situation when judicial organs apply the standard of recognition of horizontal monopoly agreement,and sums up the consensus reached and existing problems in the judicial application of the standard of recognition.The fourth chapter continues the analysis of the judicial application of the standard of recognition of horizontal monopoly agreement in Chapter 3,sorts out and summarizes the problems existing in the judicial application of the standard,and puts forward suggestions to solve the problems from the legislative and judicial perspectives.There are seven problems in the judicial application of horizontal monopoly agreement identification standard: First,the analysis framework is not clear,second,the identification standard of "other collaborative acts" is not clear,third,the plaintiff’s burden of proof is not clear,fourth,the immunity system can be actively applied by the court and other problems,fifth,the abuse of intellectual property rights has not attracted enough attention,sixth,the relevant market is not clearly defined,seventh,the grassroots court circumvention of jurisdiction system.In view of the existing problems,this paper puts forward some suggestions to optimize the judicial application of the standard of determining horizontal monopoly agreement from the perspectives of strengthening judicial guidance and perfecting legislative provisions.From the judicial perspective,it is necessary to establish an analytical framework of the standard of determining horizontal monopoly agreement,strengthen the screening of the abuse of intellectual property rights,set up the correct thinking of hearing related market definition,and correctly exercise the jurisdiction of the basic court.From the perspective of legislation,it is necessary to clarify the identification standard of "other cooperative acts",clarify the burden of proof of the plaintiff and clarify the exemption system.The practice development of anti-monopoly law and regulations system includes more rigorous and detailed requirements for perfecting the regulation of horizontal monopoly agreements and judicial application rules.This paper suggests absorbing the experience in judicial practice in time,promoting the unification of judicial application in the identification of horizontal monopoly agreements by improving legislation,issuing judicial interpretations,and issuing trial guidelines,so as to further improve judicial fairness and judicial efficiency in the anti-monopoly field.