發(fā)布時間：2018-02-10 04:04

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 鐵路票價定價權(quán) 行政訴訟中的適格原告 行政行為的合法性 鐵道事業(yè)法 禁止壟斷法　出處：《湖南大學》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：2013年，東京地方法院審理了一起行政訴訟案件。涉案私營鐵路公司在經(jīng)被告國土交通大臣的認可后提高了電車票價。5名原告系鐵路沿線的普通居民，因不滿高票價和不合理的票價設置，以國土交通大臣對提高票價等作出的各項行政認可處分違反《鐵道事業(yè)法》為由提起了行政訴訟，請求撤銷各項行政認可處分。東京地方法院雖然承認了起訴者在部分訴訟請求中的原告資格，但最終駁回了原告所有訴訟請求。原告不服，提起上訴。2014年2月，東京高等法院作出二審判決：駁回上訴，維持原判。案件的爭議焦點主要有兩個：一是5名原告是否屬于本案適格原告，二是被告國土交通大臣作出的各項行政認可處分是否合法。關(guān)于爭點一，5名原告因該行政處分而受到了利益侵害，該利益在《鐵道事業(yè)法》的保護范圍之內(nèi)，且該法可以視作將它作為個別利益來加以保護，，符合行政訴訟原告資格三要件，因此為本案適格原告。關(guān)于爭點二，國土交通大臣對本案各線路使用條件及票價上漲作出的行政認可處分違反了《鐵道事業(yè)法》第15條和第16條，且極不合理，法院作出的判決有待商榷。此外，兩家涉案鐵路運輸企業(yè)的行為還有可能構(gòu)成日本《禁止壟斷法》中的“濫用優(yōu)勢地位”和“不當差別對價”。若原告以兩家企業(yè)違反《禁止壟斷法》為由提起反壟斷訴訟，可能會得到不一樣的判決結(jié)果。
[Abstract]:In 2013, the Tokyo District Court heard an administrative case involving a private railway company that raised tram fares by 5. 5 ordinary residents along the railway line after being approved by the defendant, the Minister of Land and Transportation. Dissatisfied with the high ticket price and unreasonable fare setting, the Minister of Land and Transportation filed an administrative lawsuit on the grounds that the various administrative sanction against the Minister of Land and Transportation for raising the ticket price was in violation of the Railway undertakings Law. Tokyo District Court, although recognizing the plaintiff's qualification in some of the claims, ultimately rejected all the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff pleaded not guilty and filed an appeal. February 2014, The Tokyo High Court handed down its second instance judgment: dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The main controversy in the case was two: first, whether the five plaintiffs were eligible plaintiffs in the case, Second, whether the administrative sanction made by the defendant, the Minister of Land and Transportation, is legal. About the dispute, five plaintiffs were infringed on their interests as a result of the administrative action, which is within the scope of protection under the Railway undertakings Law. Moreover, the law can be regarded as protecting it as an individual interest, which meets the three requirements of the plaintiff's qualification in administrative litigation, so it is suitable for the plaintiff in this case. The administrative sanction taken by the Minister of Land and Transportation on the conditions of use of the various lines and the increase in fares in this case is in violation of articles 15 and 16 of the Railway undertakings Act and is extremely unreasonable. The decision of the court remains open to question. The actions of the two railway transport enterprises involved may also constitute "abuse of dominant position" and "improper differential consideration" in Japan's "Prohibition of Ridge cutting Law". If the plaintiff files an antitrust lawsuit on the grounds that the two enterprises violated the "Prohibition of Ridge determination Law," A different verdict may be obtained.
【學位授予單位】：湖南大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D931.3;DD915

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 宋勝,榮朝和;日本鐵道與鐵道企業(yè)的分類及相關(guān)法律法規(guī)[J];鐵道運輸與經(jīng)濟;2003年05期

2 張俊勇;孫有才;;鐵路市場化改革后的定價取向[J];鐵路采購與物流;2013年12期

本文編號：1499614