论文部分内容阅读
在反垄断执行同时存在公共执行和私人执行两种执行系统的情况下,一个重要的问题是公共执行的最终意见能否在私人诉讼中具有一定程度上的证明效力。美国与欧盟都先后建立了约束力规则或初步证据规则,其主要目标一方面在于减轻原告的举证责任,另一方面在于维持公私执行的一致性同时节省执行成本。但是对约束力规则或初步证据规则的质疑也同时存在,尤其是在司法独立以及被告的程序性权利保障等方面。通过讨论欧盟的公共执行意见在其后的民事反垄断诉讼中的证明效力规则,可为我国统合公私执行,保证法律适用的一致性提供借鉴。
In the context of antitrust enforcement where there are two execution systems, public enforcement and private enforcement, one of the key issues is whether the final public opinion implementation can have a degree of proverbial effect in private litigation. The United States and the European Union have successively established binding rules or preliminary evidence rules. The main objectives of the two countries lie in alleviating the plaintiff’s burden of proof and on the other hand, maintaining the consistency of public-private implementation and saving the implementation costs. However, there are also doubts about the binding rules or the preliminary rules of evidence, especially regarding judicial independence and defendants’ procedural rights protection. By discussing the EU rules of public enforcement in civil antitrust litigation in the subsequent proof of the effectiveness of the rules for our country to integrate public-private enforcement, to ensure the consistency of the law to provide reference.