我国反垄断民事诉讼主体资格研究

摘 要我国反垄断法自 2008 年颁布以来，虽然反垄断案件相对来说不是很多，但是反垄断法相关制度已经取得了很大进步。反垄断法作为经济法范畴，其实施主要依靠国家公权力的公共实施。由于市场竞争的复杂性，垄断行为在破坏市场竞争秩序的同时还侵害到其他私主体的利益。因此世界反垄断法国家在反垄断法的实施上为私主体利益的救济开通了渠道。在反垄断法实施的制度上便出现了公共实施与私人实施想结合的模式，而且随着反垄断法制环境的发展，私人实施制度的地位也越来越受到各国的重视。反垄断民事诉讼是私人实施的最主要方式，反垄断民事诉讼不仅具有执法的功能更具有救济受害者权利的功能。因此反垄断民事诉讼在当今社会经济活动活跃的时代具有十分重要的价值。我国反垄断法仅在第 50 条对反垄断民事诉讼做出了简单的规定，只是一种宣示性的规定。 最高人民法院关于审理因垄断行为引发的民事纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的规定刚刚在去年 6 月施行，虽然该司法解释对反垄断民事诉讼做出了更进一步的规定，但是其本身还有很多问题需要解决，而且反垄断民事诉讼不能仅仅停留在司法解释的层面。对于我国反垄断民事诉讼制度的完善还需要学术界更多的研究和司法实践中更多经验的总结。反垄断民事诉讼作为一种诉讼活动，活动主体在整个活动中扮演着重要的角色。诉讼主体资格是反垄断民事诉讼首先需要解决的问题，对反垄断民事诉讼主体资格的研究有助于我国反垄断民事诉讼制度的完善。由于反垄断法的特殊性以及本文篇幅有限，本文主要就反垄断民事诉讼中的冲突主体以及反垄断执法机构这三类主体进行研究，对审判主体不作研究。反垄断法属于经济法范畴，而民事诉讼本身属于民事法范畴，因此反垄断民事诉讼制度必须谋求二者的结合点。反垄断民事诉讼主体资格是以反垄断诉讼制度基本原理为基础的，因此首先需要明确反垄断法的特点、民事诉讼法的特点以及反垄断案件的特殊性。从反垄断民事诉讼的概念、特征出发寻找适用反垄断民事诉讼的垄断行为。准确定位适用反垄断民事诉讼范围之后才能更好的限定反垄断民事诉讼的主体资格。国外的先进经验可以为我国反垄断民事诉讼主体资格提供借鉴。根据国外经验以及我国立法来看，提起反垄断民事诉讼原告是一个比较广泛的范围，即任何因垄断行为受到损害的都可以提起诉讼，这是一个最基本的原则。由于反垄断法的特殊性以及我国反垄断法的发展状况，在做出最基本的规范时还需要通过列举的方式对最主要的原告类型进行明确，明确其原告资格。这个过程的判断需要借助实质性损害、实质性影响标准等。在市场竞争中经营者永远都是活动主体，经营者通过商品的生产、交换、服务的提供等参与到市场竞争中来，而产品或者服务最终都会流向消费者。因此在市场活动中，最主要的活动主体包括经营者和消费者。反垄断法作为维护市场竞争秩序，规范的主要是垄断行为。垄断行为在破坏、限制竞争同还会侵犯其他竞争者和消费者利益。因此反垄断民事诉讼原告也主要体现在竞争者和消费者。行业协会具有维护行业利益的目的，赋予其一定的原告资格有利于反垄断法的实施。实施垄断行为的主体主要体现在经营者，因此经营者当然成为反垄断民事诉讼被告之一。我国经历了计划经济向市场经济的转变过程，这样一种特殊的转型产生了行政垄断这一特色，行政垄断的特殊性、复杂性决定了行政垄断主体（行政机关或法律、法规授权组织）在一定的情况下也可以成为反垄断民事诉讼被告。在行政垄断中，由于行政机关与经营者关系的复杂性，行政机关并非当然的就具有被告资格，只能是有限的被告资格。而且在很多情况下，行政垄断还会引起其他主体成为被告。因此必须就行政垄断行为所引起的被告资格做出了单独的研究。行业协会往往为了实现本行业利益的最大化而进行价格同盟、市场划分等垄断行为，这也会严重限制、排除竞争。但是由于行业协会属于非盈利性的自律组织，并不能与一般的经营者相提并论，有必要就其做出单独的规范，从而明确其有限的被告资格。反垄断执法机构与反垄断民事诉讼有着天然的密切联系，另外由于民事诉讼法的缺陷存在，因此需要在反垄断民事诉讼制度中引入反垄断执法机构作为诉讼主体。反垄断执法机构具有专业性强、与垄断案件的密切联系的特点，因此可以赋予反垄断执法机构在反垄断民事诉讼中帮助举证、提供信息、提供意见、做出阐明的资格。反垄断执法机构不同于民事诉讼中的原被告，更有别于第三人，本文认为其应属于反垄断民事诉讼制度中的特殊主体。通过以上的逻辑，对反垄断民事诉讼中原被告以及反垄断执法机构在反垄断民事诉讼中的资格进行研究，以期待建立一种科学的反垄断民事诉讼主体制度，谋求对我国反垄断民事诉讼的健全、完善。关键词：反垄断民事诉讼；原告；被告；反垄断执法机构AbstractSince the enactment of the Anti-trust Law of China in 2008, though therere not too many cases dealt in accordance with it, the progress that China has made in both legislation and legal practice is magnificent. As part of the national macro-policies and law of competition, Anti-trust Law of China mainly depend on the national public power to put into practice. Because of the complexity of market competition, monopoly behavior not only disturbs the right order of the market competition, but also harms the interest of private individuals. Therefore, most countries that has an anti-trust legal system open channels for private individuals remedy at law. This is why both public enforcement and private enforcement may apply in the same anti-trust legal system. And with the development of the anti-trust legal environment, private enforcement becomes more and more important.Anti-trust litigation is the main means of private enforcement. It is not only a way of private remedy, but also have an effect of supervision law enforcement. Therefore, anti-trust litigation has a quite important value under the current economic circumstances at a time of economic vitality.Under the current Anti-trust Law of China, only one article, Article 50, made a relevant stipulation in regard of anti-trust litigation, which is only a declaratory statute. The Provisions of the Supreme People Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolistic Conduct just became effective as of June 2012,made a real progress on anti-trust litigation, but therere still far more problems, which may not be solved by Judicial Interpretation, we need to cope with. To solve these problems, more in-depth academic study and summary of experience in practice on the subject matter is needed.As in most litigation system, the subject of anti-trust litigation plays a very important role. As anti-trust law belongs to economic law, and civil litigation is under the regulation of civil law, to study the anti-trust legal system is surely on the basis of both economic law and civil law.The standing of the subject in anti-trust litigation is determined on the basis of the fundamental theories of anti-trust litigation. Therefore, the first problem we need to solve is to define the characteristic of anti-trust law and civil procedural law as well as the features peculiar to anti-trust cases. Afterwards, the scope that anti-trust litigation applies shall be determined thereto. Only when the litigation scope of anti-trust cases is determined correctly can there be other further study on the subjects of anti-trust litigation.By studying in a perspective of comparative law and use legal theories of other countries as a reference, the plaintiffs qualification will be determined easily. As per the legal theories and legislation in both China and abroad, the plaintiffs that can commence an anti-trust litigation are from quite a wide range, i.e. anyone who is influenced by the anti-trust and suffers material losses may launch an action against the monopolist. This is a fundamental principle. However, limited by the status of development of anti-trust law and its specialties, enumerating the most common plaintiffs in legislation is necessary.In determining the plaintiffs qualification, the principle of material losses and substantial influence standard shall be resorted to.In the market competition, the operators are always the subjects of business activities. They get involved in the competition by way of manufacturing, exchanging and providing services. And the final customers are always individual consumers. Therefore, in the market place, the most important subjects of activities are business operators and consumers.The main function of Anti-trust law is to maintain the competition order in the market place. The object activity is monopolist conduct, which is often in the form of prejudicing the interests of the competitors and consumers. And because industry associations have their natural duty to protect the members of the industry, to grant the industry associations a legal standing as plaintiffs is conductive to the enforcement of anti-trust law. The main subjects who commit monopoly are business operators. That is the fundamental reason why operators should be the defendant. China is undergoing the transition from planned economy to market economy. Administrative monopoly therefore created in the process of the transition. The special features of administrative monopoly determines that administrative body may also meet the standard of the legal status of defendant under certain circumstances. However, in order to keep a well-functioning government, the status of defendant of administrative bodies shall be stricter. And in many cases, administrative monopoly may also cause other entities being sued. Therefore, separate studies should be carried out in regard of the qualifications of defendant in cases of administrative monopoly. As to industry associations, because of the nature of non-profit organizations, a restricted qualification standard of defendant shall be exploited thereof to maintain a right order in the market place and keep the non-profit organizations well protected. Law enforcement agency for anti-monopoly and anti-monopoly litigation are related intensively. The fallbacks of civil procedural law makes it necessary to set anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies as a kind of subject of litigation. Because of the expertise of anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies, they play such important roles in the anti-trust litigation cases as providing evidences and dealing with professional legal issues. A anti-monopoly law enforcement agency is not the same with plaintiff or defendant, neither a third party. In my opinion, it has a special status alone.The study in this regard aims to make contributions to the establishment of a scientific anti-trust litigation system and to consummate the litigation system in China.Key words: Anti-trust litigation；Plaintiff；Defendant；Anti-monopoly law enforcement agency目 录导 论 .1第 1章 反垄断民事诉讼一般原理 .51.1 反垄断民事诉讼的定义及特征 .51.1.1 反垄断民事诉讼的定义 .51.1.2 反垄断民事诉讼的特征 .71.2 反垄断民事诉讼的适用范围 .91.3 结论 .10第 2章 反垄断民事诉讼原告之研究 .122.1 国外反垄断民事诉讼原告分析 .122.1.1 美国反垄断民事诉讼原告 .122.1.2 其他主要国家和地区反垄断民事诉讼原告 .132.1.3 国外反垄断民事诉讼原告资格对我国的借鉴意义 .152.2 我国反垄断民事诉讼原告之界定 .172.2.1 竞争者 .182.2.2 消费者 .192.2.3 行业协会 .212.3 反垄断民事诉讼原告资格分析 .222.4 结论 .25第 3章 反垄断民事诉讼被告之研究 .273.1 国外反垄断民事诉讼被告分析 .273.1.1 美国反垄断民事诉讼被告 .273.1.2 其他国家反垄断民事诉讼被告 .283.1.3 国外反垄断民事诉讼被告资格对我国的借鉴意义 .293.2 我国反垄断民事诉讼被告之界定 .293.2.1 经营者 .303.2.2 行政机关 .333.2.3 行业协会 .373.3 反垄断民事诉讼被告资格分析 .383.4 结论 .39第 4章 反垄断执法机构之研究 .414.1 民事诉讼模式的缺陷给反垄断民事诉讼带来的困扰 .414.2 反垄断执法机构参加反垄断民事诉讼的合理性分析 .424.2.1 反垄断执法机构与垄断行为密切联系 .424.2.2 实力的平衡能保证公平正义的实现 .424.2.3 开放性的审判机制需要反垄断执法机构的支持 .434.3 反垄断执法机构在反垄断民事诉讼中的功能 .444.3.1 国外立法和司法经验评析 .444.3.2 我国反垄断执法机构的设计对策 .454.4 结论 .47结 语 .49参考文献 .50致 谢 .54我国反垄断民事诉讼主体资格研究1导 论中华人民共和国反垄断法 （以下简称反垄断法 ） ，已由中华人民共和国第十届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十九次会议于 2007 年 8 月 30 日通过，并自 2008 年 8 月 1 日起施行。这对于我国来说是一个很大的进步，为我国市场经济的发展提供了法律依据。一部法律的出台为社会关系的调整提供了基础，接下来的重要工作就是法律的实施。我国反垄断法实施以后，这些年无论是学界还是司法实践中都有很多讨论的热点。法的实施是法律规范的要求在生活中获得实现的活动，其直接目的是法的实现。法的实现是法作用于现实关系的重要阶段和重要形式。如果法的规定不能在人们及其组织的活动中实现，那就是一纸空文，不会带来现实意义，也不能实现法的价值 1。根据唯物辩证法的观点，事物之间是普遍存在联系的。我国反垄断法的实现过程也是与各种社会因素相联系的，是受各种社会因素影响的，因此我国反垄断法在实施过程中要不断运用法学理论，适应社会法治的需求，考虑各种相关因素从而建立起完善的法律制度，以实现其的价值目标和法律功能。公平正义作为法的灵魂和根本价值是历史上各不相同的法律制度的共同基础，反垄断法所体现的公平是社会实质公平。 2在自由竞争占据主流地位的时代，调整市场经济各利益主体之间的关系主要依靠以“个体权利本位” 、 “意思自治”等为根本原则的私法。然而随着自由竞争的繁荣，反竞争的行为就会慢慢滋生。为了规范竞争秩序，维护公平竞争，实现国家的经济政策目标，国家作为“守夜人”的角色开始转变，对市场经济进行干预，从而创制了反垄断法。反垄断法不仅是市场经济的内在要求，也是国家职能的体现。 3作为调整公权力与私权利的经济法同样没有完全摒弃私人1 参见孙国华、朱景文主编:法理学 （第三版）