摘要
我国《反垄断法》第五十条确立反垄断私人诉讼机制,但对涉外垄断纠纷案件的管辖权并无细化规定,在实践中出现了冲突与矛盾,不利于我国反垄断私人诉讼制度的有效运行。根据华为公司诉美国IDC公司案、中兴公司诉维睿格公司案等案件的情况,结合别国的立法路径与司法实践,我国应当从纠纷类型、侵权行为地的认定、适用不方便法院原则等角度考虑,建立特殊的涉外垄断纠纷管辖权规则,更加客观和全面地分析涉外反垄断纠纷的个案。
Article 50 of ＂Anti-monopoly Law＂established the anti-monopoly private litigation mechanism,but there are no more details about jurisdiction concerning foreign-related disputes in the relevant laws and judicial interpretations; and these conflicts and contradictions are not conducive to the effective operation of anti-monopoly private litigation mechanism in China. In Huawei v IDC, ZTE v Vringo,through comparing other countries＇ law and practice, it is very urgent to establish the special rule to objectively and comprehensively analyze foreign-related monopoly disputes based on characteristics of disputes, place of harmful event, Doctrine of Forum Non-conveniens.
出处
《重庆社会科学》
CSSCI
2018年第2期53-60,共8页
Chongqing Social Sciences
关键词
涉外垄断争议
管辖权
私人诉讼
foreign-related monopoly dispute
jurisdiction
private litigation
