129810431508437500_79Comment: anti-monopoly is still
Supreme People's Court on May 8, 2012, officially announced the trial of civil dispute cases arising from monopolies of several problems of application of law provisions (hereinafter referred to as the explanation). The explanation for the anti-monopoly law specific detailed rules for the implementation of the 50th, will come into force on June 1 of this year. Which is the highest court in the first judicial interpretation of the antitrust trial introduced in the field
Diablo 3 CD-KEY。 The anti-monopoly law prohibiting monopolistic behavior, basic legal protection of market competition and maintaining the market order, known as "economic Constitution". Since it was implemented on August 1, 2008, by the end of 2011, the national court civil cases in the first instance received antitrust 61, conclusion of 53. However, due to various reasons, so far has not yet appeared in favour of the plaintiff's case.In order to increase the likelihood of plaintiffs win, highest in 2009 officially launched the drafting work of the explanation, this end of the explanation of the formation of the main subject, jurisdiction, the burden of proof from the litigation, damages, and limitation of the five regard, clear the antitrust civil litigation defendants ' procedural rights and obligations of the Central Plains: first, the plaintiff in antitrust civil litigation including allVictims of monopoly. Both operators and consumers, as long as the monopoly were lost, may bring a civil action. In addition, in order to resolve public force the protracted problem of unable to timely access to compensation to victims, victims can in anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies to deal with monopolies to the courts after or without treatment directly to the courts. SubsectionSecond, given that specialized in antitrust civil litigation and complexity, its levels of jurisdiction set in intellectual property cases
Diablo 3 Gold, mutatis mutandis, by the intermediate people's Court as the Court of first instance. In addition, cases involving monopolistic agreement, monopolized by the defendant's domicile or place of performance of the agreement the jurisdiction of the courts; other antitrust cases by the monopolies or the jurisdiction of the courts of the defendant's domicile. Thirdly, taking into account the antitrust civil litigationThe plaintiffs to private individuals, lack of rights to administrative investigations of antitrust law enforcement agencies, were setting the explained two may rebut the presumption, to relieve the plaintiff "evidence" issue. First, the presumption of public enterprise or any other operator has a dominant position in the market with exclusive status according to the law and, second, to defendant's presumption of release of information it has a dominant position in the market. Presumption asAfter the execution, by the defendant giving evidence to refute. In addition, the interpretation allows the defendant to employ "expert witnesses", special issue of the case to explain. IV, on monopolistic behavior damages, the interpretation does not take the United States "three times double compensation" principle, and select the "compensation for actual loss". But considering the antitrust investigation may be triggered by high fees, the interpretationAllows the plaintiffs investigation, suppression of monopolistic behaviour due to the payment of reasonable compensation for expenditures charged to loss of range. V, limitation in antitrust civil litigation for two years, since the plaintiff knew or should have known their interests against from the time of calculation.
Over lawsuit
Diablo 3 gold, plaintiff's loss of right. Interpretation the introduction of white space makes up for my anti-trust self implementation, established antitrust peopleBasic framework of action, clear specific meaning of the relevant provisions of the antitrust laws. However, our interpretation is not expecting too much. Law of antitrust enforcement is different from other sectors. Across the world, strict enforcement of its anti-monopoly law depends largely on the Government's use of anti-monopoly law of market confidence and determination. No country is not immediately following the anti-monopoly lawActively involved in the enforcement of antitrust law and its need of a competition culture in the process of training and long-term accumulation. In addition, the explanation mainly summarizes the high recognition at home and abroad of judicial experience, and for some controversial but key issues of noncommittal. For example, group action often is considered to be important factors in promoting antitrust civil litigation, but the explanation for this andNot regulated. In addition, the explanation also does not indicate how to assist the plaintiffs access to investigation of anti-monopoly law enforcement agency information. Taking into account China's Antimonopoly Law enforcement is still in its early stages, the highest such overly cautious approach, but detrimental to the development of antitrust civil litigation. (Author, Associate Professor, Faculty of law, Department of Shanghai Jiaotong University Kaiyuan)
Others:
