【作者】 卢丹；

【导师】 冯彦君；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 经济法学， 2012， 硕士

【摘要】 美国司法部反托拉斯署于1978年开始实施宽恕制度，其诞生至今虽然只有三十余年，但这些年来，宽恕制度无论在理论上，还是实践上，都在不断的完善。目前，法国、德国、英国、加拿大、日本、韩国等地都已通过立法的方式确立了宽恕制度，它已经成为各国打击垄断协议的最有效的工具。我国在2007年颁布了《反垄断法》，并顺应国际趋势，在该部立法中确立了宽恕制度。但是，该项制度的规定却过于粗线条，由于缺乏具体的操作规则，致使其对垄断协议的惩处力度不足，实施效果并不理想。鉴于我国的执法经验尚显稚嫩，故原则性的制定一个框架式的制度，对社会生活起到一个总括性的规范作用，这是符合由简到精的立法过程的，也可以使立法能够适应日新月异的社会经济生活。接下来，在《反垄断法》的框架内，制定相应的实施细则，达到完善立法的目的是行之有效的，这样既保持了法律的稳定性，又可以使反垄断法得到切实贯彻。本文旨在分析宽恕制度原理的基础上，着重讨论我国宽恕制度的完善问题。要研究一项制度，首先要厘定这项制度所涉及内容的涵义，故本文开篇即介绍了宽恕制度的基本原理。首先界定了宽恕制度的涵义，以便明确文章所讨论问题的内涵和外延；其次从经济学和法理学两个角度论述了宽恕制度存在的合理性，在经济学上，垄断协议的参与者都是作为经济理性人而假设存在的，他们的目标即是追求自身利益的最大化，宽恕制度所运用的“囚徒困境”原理即是使垄断协议参与者为了自身利益而放弃垄断协议的整体利益，选择背叛协议。在法理学上，宽恕制度作用主要体现在节省执法成本，及时维护市场经济秩序，降低垄断协议的破坏性，进而保障消费者的自主选择权和公平交易权，使竞争法的立法目标——社会整体效率得以实现。再次，对宽恕制度能够发挥作用的主要因素予以概括，即有效的威慑，透明的实施规则和有效的保护措施。在对宽恕制度的内涵和运行模式有个大体了解的基础上，对我国的宽恕制度做出评价，宽恕制度在我国运行状况欠佳主要受制于以下两个方面。一方面是反垄断法实施环境的因素，即反垄断法不仅法律责任规定得缺失、模糊，执法权也较为分散，使得宽恕制度没有一个合理的运行基础；另一方面是我国宽恕制度过于原则性，即缺乏具体的实体性规则和程序性规则。针对我国宽恕制度的不足之处，在借鉴国外立法经验，结合我国自身法律环境的基础上，对我国宽恕制度的完善提出了三点建议。第一点是要完善我国垄断协议的制裁措施，即增加刑事化制裁方式，并健全相应的民事责任体系，加大对垄断协议参与者的威慑力度。第二点是要提高我国反垄断执法机构的执法能力，首先体现在要合理划分执法机构的职责范围，明确各执法机构的管辖权，并设立相对独立的宽恕申请受理机构，避免多头执法给申请者带来不必要的困惑；其次是要加强反垄断执法机构执法方法的积累，提高执法人员对市场信息的敏感性，增强垄断协议被查处的可能性，提高执法效率。第三点是要确立我国反垄断法宽恕制度的具体适用规则，包括宽恕制度的适用主体、减免规则、申请与受理规则、申请者身份保密制度等从实体规则到程序规则，再到对启动宽恕制度的申请者的保护制度均予以了论述。全方位的探讨了如何使宽恕制度从单纯的法律文本变成具备可操作性的实用规则。更多还原

【Abstract】 U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Department in1978began the implementa-tion of Leniency Program, the birth date although only thirty years, these years,Leniency Program in both of the theory and the practice is in the continuousimprovement. At present, the legislation Leniency Program has been established inthe France, Germany, Britain, Canada, Japan，South Korea and other places, it hasbecome the most effective tool to combat the monopoly agreement.China also conforms with the trend Leniency Program, the introduction of the"anti-monopoly law" has been established in2007. However, the provisions are tooprincipled, and they are short of specific substantive rules. The deterrent power is alsoinsufficient. There still remained many parts to complete the laws. In the view of ournot too much practice of law enforcement experience, to develop a frameworkleading role in the system is in line with the general legislative process. In order tokeep the stability of the law, enacting a set of implementation details assorted withleniency program under Anti-monopoly Law is very necessary and efficient. It canalso make the legislation to be able to adapt to the changing social and economic life.In this article, we focused on the perfection programs and all the analysis are based onthe theory of Leniency Program.To study a system, we must first determine that the system involved in themeaning of the content, This article begins with describing the meaning of LeniencyProgram has been defined firstly， which is much helpful to clear the connotation andextension of the problem. Secondary, the rationality of the existence of LeniencyProgram has been discussed by two perspectives from economics and jurisprudence.In economics, the monopoly agreements participant which makes a role of rationaleconomic man always pursued their own maximized benefits. The "prisoner’sdilemma" manufactured by Leniency Program played a catalytic role for the betraysof each other. In the jurisprudence, the system can also save the costs of enforcementand prevent the further destruction of monopoly agreements on the market economicorder. It protects the fair trading and independent-choose rights of the consumers. It is also conducive to the legislative goals of the efficiency of society as a wholecompetition law achieved. Additional, the main factor on the system is able to playthe role of forgiveness be summarized, that is an effective deterrent and transparentimplementation of rules and effective protection measures.Connotation and mode of operation of the Leniency Program have a generalunderstanding on the basis of our forgiveness system to make the evaluation.Leniency Program in our country did not achieve good implementation because oftwo main reasons. The one is the lack of law enforcement environment, whichembodied in the blank criminal responsibility, too light administrative responsibilityof civil liability, fuzzy and the dispersion of the law enforcement powers. On theother hand, China’s Leniency Program is too principled, which means the lack ofspecific substantive rules and procedural rules.For the inadequacies of the Leniency Program by reference the three proposalsbased on the foreign legislative experience, our own legal environment, and theimprovement of our leniency program. The first point is to improve China’s sanctionsof monopoly agreement by increasing the sanction of criminalization, improvementof civil liability system and enlargement the deterrent efforts for the monopolizedagreement participants. The second point is to enhance law enforcement capabilitiesof China’s anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies, which is embodied in therational division of law enforcement agencies, to clear the jurisdiction of lawenforcement agencies, and the establishment of a relatively independent offorgiveness to a notified body which can avoid the unnecessary confusions；theenhanced experience accumulation of anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies, andthe establishment of the rules of the system as a specific application of our antitrustlaws forgiveness, including forgiveness application of the system main relief rules toapply accepted rules apply for the identity of confidential system from the substantiverules to the program rules, and then start to forgive system for the protection systemare to be discussed. In this paper, we explored full range of how to make forgivenessbecome practical rules of the leniency program from a purely legal text.更多还原