【摘要】：隨著我國市場經(jīng)濟的不斷發(fā)展,壟斷所導致的損害問題(比如360與騰訊的壟斷損害糾紛)越來越受到社會的關注。對壟斷導致的損害應當進行賠償,在法學界已經(jīng)形成共識,但是壟斷致?lián)p賠償?shù)男再|如何、賠償?shù)姆秶鯓�、賠償?shù)臉嫵梢男?在法學界仍然欠缺深入的探討。目前,我國法學界對壟斷問題的研究主要集中在壟斷本身,而對于壟斷造成損害的賠償研究則嚴重不足,司法實踐也進展緩慢,亟待系統(tǒng)深入的研究。作為世界上制定反壟斷法較早的國家,美國在反壟斷的實施層面亦為全球領先。這種領先地位的取得,同壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任制度在美國的發(fā)展壯大息息相關。美國壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任制度發(fā)展和完善的歷史脈絡表明,“制定法先行”的特征使得美國壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任制度呈現(xiàn)出類似于大陸法系下侵權責任的結構。就賠償權利人和損害事實而言,美國在司法實踐中以制定法的基本精神為指導,通過案例形成了“直接損害規(guī)則”和“間接購買者規(guī)則”,前者用于甄別壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任訴訟中的原告是否適格,后者則將作為間接購買者的消費者排除在適格賠償權利人的范圍之外。而對于損害事實,美國司法實踐中以判例的方式明確了只有具備“壟斷性損害”特質的被損害權利和受損失利益,才是壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任制度救濟的對象。就壟斷行為和過錯而言,盡管美國學說和判例均認可過錯是壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任的一個要件,但在對壟斷行為“違法性”的細化中導致了“過錯認定”的分野,“過錯”不是壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任的必然構成要件,它只和部分“違法性”壟斷行為相連共同成為壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任之構成要件。這種過錯的“淡化”趨勢從一個側面表明,美國壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任是以“客觀責任”為主的侵權責任形式。就因果關系而言,“本身違法”和“合理原則”的運用是因果關系檢測的基本原則,任何有關壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任因果關系的證明都必須在“本身違法”和“合理原則”的指導下進行。隨著時代的進步,“本身違法”的適用空間不斷縮小,而“合理原則”的地位卻日益凸顯。圍繞“合理原則”的要求,對影響市場勢力的各要素進行分析,成了美國壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任之因果關系證明的主要內(nèi)容。就損害的賠償而言,包括標尺比較法、前后比較法、市場份額法以及持續(xù)經(jīng)營法在內(nèi)的四種損害計算方式,都是圍繞著“利于操作且能發(fā)揮罰則功效”的理念展開的�！叭顿r償”作為美國壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任制度的標志,從國會通過《謝爾曼法》之日起就發(fā)揮著巨大作用。上個世紀80年代以來,為打消不斷出現(xiàn)的質疑聲,也為了促進“三倍賠償”規(guī)則適應形勢的新變化,對“三倍賠償”的合理性進行解釋有了新發(fā)展。美國壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任制度的先進理論和成熟實踐經(jīng)驗,對我國壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任制度有著積極的借鑒意義:首先,通過明確壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任的侵權屬性和賠償責任主體的范圍、細化壟斷行為的種類、淡化“過錯”的認定以及完善因果關系的證明機制等五方面措施,可以完善我國壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任的構成要件體系;其次,在借鑒美國損害計算方式的基礎上,有條件地引入“三倍賠償”罰則,能達到健全損害的賠償機制的目標;再次,從法治環(huán)境建設的角度而言,規(guī)范法官的自由裁量權和重視反壟斷法政策的運用,當能顯著改善我國壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任制度實施;最后,學習美國經(jīng)驗,不斷協(xié)調(diào)壟斷致?lián)p賠償責任實施與反壟斷行政執(zhí)法的關系,可以促進我國反壟斷法律制度的不斷發(fā)展。
[Abstract]:With the continuous development of China's market economy, the damage caused by monopoly (such as the dispute between 360 and Tencent) has attracted more and more attention from the society. There is a consensus in the legal circles that the damages caused by monopoly should be compensated. But what is the nature of the compensation for monopoly damage, the scope of compensation and the elements of compensation? At present, the research on monopoly in China is mainly concentrated on monopoly itself, while the research on compensation for damages caused by monopoly is seriously insufficient, and the judicial practice is also slow and needs to be studied systematically and thoroughly. This kind of leading position is closely related to the development of the system of liability for damages caused by monopoly in the United States. It is similar to the structure of tort liability under the continental law system. As far as the obligee of compensation and the fact of damage are concerned, the United States, guided by the basic spirit of statute law, has formed the "direct damage rule" and "indirect buyer rule" through cases. The former is used to distinguish whether the plaintiff is qualified in the litigation of liability for damages caused by monopoly, while the latter is used to distinguish the plaintiff from the plainti As for the damaged facts, the American judicial practice has made it clear that only the damaged rights and interests with the characteristics of "monopolistic damage" are the objects of relief under the monopolistic damages liability system. As far as fault is concerned, although both American doctrine and jurisprudence agree that fault is an important element of the liability for damages caused by monopoly, in the refinement of the "illegality" of monopoly behavior, it leads to the division of "fault determination", "fault" is not an inevitable component of the liability for damages caused by monopoly, it is only connected with part of the "illegality" monopoly behavior. This trend of "dilution" of the fault shows from one side that the liability for damages caused by monopoly in the United States is mainly a form of tort liability based on "objective liability". With the progress of the times, the applicable space of "self-violation" is shrinking, while the status of "reasonable principle" is becoming increasingly prominent. The analysis of the factors has become the main content of the proof of the causality of the liability for damages caused by monopoly in the United States.As far as the compensation for damages is concerned, the four methods of calculating damages, including the scale comparison method, the front and back comparison method, the market share method and the continuing operation method, all revolve around the idea of "facilitating operation and exerting the effect of penalties". Triple indemnity, as the symbol of the American monopoly liability system for damages, has played an important role since the adoption of the Sherman Act by Congress. The advanced theory and mature practical experience of the American system of compensation for damages caused by monopoly have a positive reference for China's system of compensation for damages caused by monopoly. Firstly, by clarifying the tort attributes of the liability for damages caused by monopoly and the scope of the subject of compensation, we can refine the types of monopoly and dilute the "fault" liability. Five measures, such as the confirmation of "triple compensation" and the perfection of the proof mechanism of causality, can perfect the constitutive elements of the liability for damages caused by monopoly in China; secondly, on the basis of drawing lessons from the United States damage calculation method, the introduction of "triple compensation" penalty can achieve the goal of perfecting the compensation mechanism for damages; thirdly, from the legal environment; From the perspective of construction, standardizing the discretion of judges and attaching importance to the application of anti-monopoly law and policy can significantly improve the implementation of China's anti-monopoly liability system for damages caused by monopoly; finally, learning from the experience of the United States, and constantly coordinating the implementation of the liability for damages caused by monopoly with the implementation of anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement, can promote the non-monopoly of China's anti-monopoly legal system. Break the development.
【學位授予單位】：湖南大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D971.2;DD912.29
，

本文編號：2207706