导　　师： 彭真军

学科专业： 0351

授予学位： 硕士

作　　者： ;

机构地区： 广东财经大学

摘　　要： 十八届三中全会决定指出：“紧紧围绕使市场在资源配置中起决定作用深化经济体制改革，要进一步处理好政府和市场的关系，使市场在资源配置中起决定作用和更好地发挥政府的作用”。这是我国经济体制改革的核心，也是市场经济自由公平竞争的客观要求。而作为阻碍市场经济自由、平等、公平、有序发展的“宿敌”——行政垄断一直是市场规制所要解决的顽症。实现对行政垄断的有效规制一直是学术界研究的重点，也是竞争法所要解决的难点。由于行政垄断先天的复杂性、专业性、政策性和法律性使得实现对其有效规制变得愈加困难。从其产生至今，学术界提出了各种规制理论，无论是“政治体制改革论”、“综合治理论”还是“法律规制论”都力求使得行政垄断能得到有效控制。但实践证明，行政垄断在过去的几年里不但没有得到有效的规制，反而变本加厉。因此，实现对行政垄断的有效控制需要寻求一种的新的规制方法，新的制度突破，那就是司法控制，利用司法救济制度实现对行政垄断的有效规制。 本文紧紧围绕“司法权对行政垄断的规制”，采用理论研究方法和比较分析方法，从四个部分对行政垄断和构建反行政垄断司法救济制度问题进行探讨。 第一部分简要分析行政垄断和反行政垄断司法救济制度。在简述学界对行政垄断概念界定不同的基础上，提出行政垄断是行政主体（国务院除外）滥用行政权力，排除、限制竞争的一种违法行为。理解该概念实质时需要把握两点，一是行政垄断实施的主体是除了国务院以外的行政主体，其与行政权力具有天然的联系；二是行政主体实施的排除、限制竞争的违法行为更多表现在抽象行政行为，也就是抽象行政垄断，这也是司法救济制度所要规制的重点。接着，从反行政垄断司法救济制度的概念分析出发，剖析其法律基础并回顾学术界和现行法律制度关于规制行政垄断的相关理论制度，分析它们存在的不足，提出用“司法救济制度制约行政垄断”实现对行政垄断的有效控制这一制度突破。 第二部分集中介绍分析域外构建反行政垄断司法救济制度的实践及启示。分别从市场经济发达国家和经济转型国家两个侧面来阐述域外反行政垄断司法救济制度构建的实践经验，提出我国在构建反垄断司法救济制度时应该借鉴的理论和实践成果。 第三部分主要论述我国构建反行政垄断司法救济制度的现实性。该部分立足我国国情及理论实际，从构建中面临的问题、构建的必要性、构建的可行性三个方面阐释该制度建立所要解决的主要问题及其构建的条件基础，提出当前构建反行政垄断具有现实的必要性和实现的可能性。 第四部分重点探讨构建反行政垄断司法救济制度的路径。诉讼的一般逻辑过程是起诉—审理——执行—监督。反行政垄断司法救济制度的设计也必须要遵循诉讼的逻辑架构，因此，在这一部分首先提出要明确反行政垄断的原被告范围及赋予其直接“司法权利”，这是救济制度的基石。其次，要确定反行政垄断的诉讼模式及案件的审查标准，这是法院受理及审判的前提。接着要确立案件的法院管辖和执行监督，这是权利实现的最后保障。最后要建立配套可行的公益经济诉讼机制和对应的国家赔偿制度，以更好地实现权利救济。 没有最好的理论，只有更好制度，对行政垄断的有效规制不是一个静态的墨守成规，而是一个动态的与时俱进。因此，反垄断司法救济制度的构建不是一劳永逸，一蹴而就的，它也是一个不断发展完善的动态理论制度，需要学界仁人志士的上下而求索。 The Third Plenary Session pointed out that we should focus on the reform of the economicsystem and further balance the relation between the government and the market, which canhelp to strengthen the decisive role of the market in resource allocation and to give full playto government functions. And this is the core of our economic system reform, as well as anobject requirement of the free and fair competitive market economy. While as a hereditaryobstacle to the market economy’s free, fair, and equal and order development, theadministrative monopoly has long been a chronic disease the market regulations need to dealwith. To regulate the administrative monopoly effectively has long been a study priority forthe scholars, as well as an intractable problem for the Competition Law. Due to its innatecomplex, professional, political and legislative characteristics, administrative monopoly isgetting more difficult to be controlled. Scholars has come up with variety of regulationtheories since the administrative monopoly’s emergence, from the political system reformtheory, the comprehensive treatment theory to legal theory, all striving to bring it into aneffective control, while practice has proved that the administrative monopoly has not beenregulated but intensified, which makes it more significant to pose a new regulative methodand a new break through for system, that is, the legislative control that brings an effectivecontrol to the administrative monopoly by the judicial remedy system. From a theoretical research and comparative point of view, with concentration on theregulation of judicial power towards the administration monopoly, the author analyzes theadministrative monopoly and the construction of judicial remedy system for anti-monopolyin four chapters in this full text. The first chapter analyzes the be-all and end-all of the administrative monopoly and thejudicial remedy system for anti-monopoly. By sketching scholars’ different views in definingthe administration, the author points out that administrative monopoly is all illegal state oract that the administrative subjects/(excluding the State Council，central government/)abuse ofadministrative power and the implementation of the exclusion，restriction of marketcompetition, the fact of which is an economical act and monophobic state supported by theadministrative power. Two points shall be highlighted when interpret the core of theadministrative monopoly: the first is that the subject that practice administration monopoly isthe administrative subjects excluding the State Council and is inherently connected withadministrative power; the second is that the illegal act and state of implementation of the exclusion，restriction of market competition of the administrative subject is mainly shown asan abstract administrative behavior, that is the abstract administrative monopoly, which is theregulation emphasis of the judicial remedy system. Furthermore, by analyzing the concept ofthe judicial remedy system toward anti-administrative monopoly, dissecting its legal footing,reviewing and analyzing the shortfalls of the theories and regulation systems of scholars andthe present legal system for regulating administrative monopoly, the author puts forward tobreakthrough for regulating the administrative monopoly by the judicial remedy systemrestrictions. The second chapter introduces and analyzes the practice of construction ofanti-administrative monopoly of foreign countries and its inspirations. By expounding theexperiences of building the anti-administrative monopoly judicial remedy systems of foreigncountries from aspects of the developed market economic countries and the transition ones,the author put forward to a view that the referential theory and results of practices shall beconcerned in China’s building of anti-monopoly judicial remedy system. The third chapter mainly discusses the actuality of the construction of anti-administrativemonopoly judicial remedy systems. Based on national conditions and theory, this partpresents the practical need and realization of the possibility of the anti-administrativemonopoly by expounding the challenges, the construction necessity, and feasibility of theconstruction so as to solve main problems and constructing condition foundation. The fourth chapter focused on how to construct anti-administrative monopoly judicialremedy systems. The general logic process of proceeding issue, trial, execution andsupervision, which the design of the system must follow, too. Therefore, in this part, firstly,there is a need to clarify the plaintiff’s and defendant’s scope in lawsuit about theanti-administrative monopoly and their direct justice rights because it is the cornerstone ofthe relief system. Secondly, as the premise of the court and the trial, the litigation mode andthe standard review of the anti-administrative monopoly case should be determined. Thenthe court jurisdiction and enforcement supervision need to be established, which is theultimate security to the realization of right. Finally, the supporting viable economic publicinterest litigation mechanism and the corresponding national compensation system should beestablished. There is no best but better system. The effective regulation of the administrative monopoly isnot a static stick in the mind, but a changeable keeping with times. Therefore, to constructthe anti-administrative monopoly judicial remedy systems is not to put things right once andfor all or accomplish at one stroke. It is also a dynamic theory system that needs all kinds of wise men in the academy to develop and perfect constantly.

关 键 词： 行政垄断 反行政垄断 司法救济制度

分 类 号： [D922.294 D925.3]

领　　域： [政治法律] [政治法律] [政治法律] [政治法律]