反垄断民事诉讼原告资格制度研究

Study on the Plaintiff's Qualification System in Civil Procedure of Anti-monopoly

我国《反垄断法》第50条用"他人"来指代反垄断民事诉讼的请求权人,用语模糊,难以具体操作。一般而言,与违法行为人存在横向竞争关系的经营者的原告资格是较为明确的,争议的焦点集中在纵向关系上:随着现代经济产业链条的不断延伸和扩张,垄断行为的影响也呈现出越来越广泛而深远的趋势,在这个涉及多方主体的多层级的纵向产业链条上,反垄断民事诉讼原告资格的触角到底应该延伸到哪里?美国、日本和德国都根据本国的实际情况或通过立法或通过司法作出了各自的回答。对我国而言,赋予所有受垄断违法行为影响的人,包括竞争者、直接购买者及间接购买者以原告资格更具有正当性,也更符合我国当下的具体国情。

Article 50 of Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law uses a rather vague word ＂others＂ to indicate the complainants in anti-monopoly civil procedure, which is not instructive in practice. Generally speaking, the managers＇ plaintiff qualification who is the horizontal competitors of the violator is relatively definite and the controversial focus is on the vertical relationship： with the prevailing and expanding of multiparty supply chains in modem economy, the influence of anti-monopoly has wide and far-reaching trend. In such a vertical supply chains involved with all-dimensional and all-level, where the feeler of the plaintiffs qualification in anti-monopoly civil proceedings should extend？ America, Japan and Germany each respond to the question either through legislation or jurisdiction. For China, endowing all victims influenced by monopoly illegal activities including competitors, direct purchasers and indirect purchasers with the plaintiff qualification is reasonable and consistent with our specific national situation.