| Since Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law was enforced in 2008, there has been a big gap between the development of the anti-monopoly private litigation and the expectation of the law. Until now, no plaintiff won a case in the anti-monopoly lawsuits, mainly because the court usually plays a passive role during a trial, while anti-monopoly case requests the court and judge to be more active. Moreover, in an anti-monopoly case, the defendant is generally much more powerful and influential than the plaintiff, and such unbalanced situation cannot be solved by the traditional civil procedure. Still, the court can hardly deal with certain special cases, e.g. refusal of a deal. Lastly, it always takes time to go through judicial procedure, so the remedy may not be provided in time. So, the troubles that the current anti-monopoly private litigation is facing cannot be solved by the improvement or adjustment within civil procedure system.In contrast, the administrative enforcement authorities of anti-monopoly law are more competent than the courts in respect of resources and power allocation. More importantly, as the enforcement of the anti-monopoly law is developing, the administrative enforcement authorities do not focus on whether a behavior is illegal or not any longer. They target to improve the social welfare. During the transitional period, independent administrative enforcement organs are established, the guidelines of enforcement are promulgated, economic analysis is applied widely, and the organization of the enforcement organs is changed. Compared with the courts, the administrative enforcement organs are playing a more and more important role. Accordingly, when the enforcement of anti-monopoly law is developing in the direction of regulation, it is necessary to improve both the administrative procedure and the judicial review to prevent it from deviating from the final goal of safeguarding competition and protecting the rights and interests of consumers. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号