中华人民共和国反垄断法2007(英文版)Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China
竞争法(双语)课程03antimonopolylaw2垄断协议课件
can there be a MA between competitors?
JUFE Yu Ling
MAs
Agreements
Decisions
other concerted behaviors
between competitors
Act due to price fixing. ▪ the DCTGA 500,000 kroner, and ▪ the members of the executive committee were fined 15,000
kroner.
JUFE Yu Ling
10
Judgment of Second Instance
▪ Issues of this case ▪ Which judicial doctrine should be applied? ▪ How to prove monopoly conducts?
JUFE Yu Ling
ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้ Class Presentation
JUFE Yu Ling
Christmas tree price fixing scandal in Denmark (2007 )
✓2. Why should we fight against price fixing?
✓3. How should the state regulate price fixing?
✓4. How should the company prevent price fixing
in order to minimize its legal risks?
反垄断法(中英文对照)
中华人民共和国反垄断法Anti-Monopoly Law of the People'sRepublic of ChinaEnglish Version 中文版发文日期：2007-08-30有效范围：全国发文机关：全国人民代表大会常务委员会文号：主席令[2007]第68号时效性：现行有效生效日期：2008-08-01所属分类：反垄断法（市场竞争法->反垄断法）Promulgation Date：08-30-2007 Effective Region：NATIONAL Promulgator： the Standing Committee of the National People's CongressDocument No：Order of the President [2007] No. 68 Effectiveness：Effective Effective Date：08-01-2008 Category：Anti－Monopoly Law （Market Competition Law->Anti－Monopoly Law）中华人民共和国反垄断法Anti-Monopoly Law of the People'sRepublic of China主席令[2007]第68号Order of the President [2007] No. 68 2007年8月30日August 30, 2007《中华人民共和国反垄断法》已由中华人民共和国第十届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十九次会议于2007年8月30日通过，现予公布，自2008年8月1日起施行。
中华人民共和国主席胡锦涛The Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China was adopted by the 29th session of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress on August 30, 2007 and is hereby promulgated. It shall go into effect as of August 1, 2008.President of the People's Republic of China: Hu Jintao附件：中华人民共和国反垄断法Attachment: Anti-Monopoly Law of thePeople's Republic of China（2007年8月30日第十届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十九次会议通过）(Adopted by the by the 29th session of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress on August 30, 2007)目录第一章总则第二章垄断协议第三章滥用市场支配地位第四章经营者集中第五章滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争第六章对涉嫌垄断行为的调查第七章法律责任第八章附则CONTENTSCHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER II MONOPOLY AGREEMENTS CHAPTER III ABUSE OF DOMINANT MARKET POSITIONCHAPTER IV OPERATOR CONSOLIDATION CHAPTER V ABUSE OF ADMINSTATIVE AUTHORITY TO ELIMINATE OR RESTRICT COMPETITIONCHAPTER VI INVESTIGATION OF SUSPECTED MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES CHAPTER VII LEGAL LIABILITIES CHAPTER VIII SUPPELENTARY PROVISIONS第一章总则CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS第一条为了预防和制止垄断行为，保护市场公平竞争，提高经济运行效率，维护消费者利益和社会公共利益，促进社会主义市场经济健康发展，制定本法。
禁止垄断协议行为的规定中英文对照版
禁止垄断协议行为的规定中英文对照版工商行政管理机关禁止垄断协议行为的规定Rules of AIC on Prohibition of Monopoly Agreements第一条为了制止经济活动中的垄断协议行为，根据《中华人民共和国反垄断法》（以下简称《反垄断法》），制定本规定。
Article 1 These Rules are formulated in accordance with the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as “AML”) for purpose of preventing monopoly agreement in economic activities.第二条禁止经营者在经济活动中达成垄断协议。
垄断协议是指违反《反垄断法》第十三条、第十四条、第十六条的规定，经营者之间达成的或者行业协会组织本行业经营者达成的排除、限制竞争的协议、决定或者其他协同行为。
协议或者决定包括书面形式和口头形式。
其他协同行为是指经营者虽未明确订立书面或者口头形式的协议或者决定，但实质上存在协调一致的行为。
Article 2Undertakings are prohibited from reaching any monopoly agreement in economic activities.Monopoly agreements shall mean any agreement, decision and other concerted practice reached among undertakings or organized by industry association that eliminate or restrict competition in violation of Article 13, 14, 16 of the AML.An agreement or decision may take written and oral forms.Other concerted practice shall mean colluded coordination in practice between undertakings without express oral or written agreements or decisions.第三条认定其他协同行为，应当考虑下列因素：（一）经营者的市场行为是否具有一致性；（二）经营者之间是否进行过意思联络或者信息交流；（三）经营者能否对一致行为作出合理的解释。
第十四章 反垄断法
一、垄断的含义与分类
3、依据垄断产生的原因 （1）国家垄断 （2）自然垄断
一、垄断的含义与分类
根据法律的价值判断 可以分为合法垄断 法律的价值判断， 4、根据法律的价值判断，可以分为合法垄断 非法垄断。 和非法垄断。 反垄断法----非法垄断。 反垄断法----非法垄断。 ----非法垄断 合法垄断主要包括自然垄断行业（ 合法垄断主要包括自然垄断行业（如：水、 气供应）和政府赋予经营特权的行业， 电、气供应）和政府赋予经营特权的行业， （如：烟草专卖），还包括法律赋予的专利权 烟草专卖），还包括法律赋予的专利权 ）， 软件的知识产权）。 （如：软件的知识产权）。
第十四章 反垄断法 Antitrust Law
反垄断法的主要内容 第一节 反垄断法概述 第二节 反垄断法的主要内容 主要内容 第三节 行政垄断和垄断豁免 垄断豁免 (exemption of monopoly)
第一节 反垄断法概述
本节内容 一、垄断的含义和分类 二、反垄断法的含义 含义和理论基础 含义 三、反垄断立法指导思想的演进 结构主义 行为主义 四、反垄断法的适用原则 适用原则 适用 五、我国反垄断立法的概况
竞争的经济学理论
新古典学派的完全竞争理论（马歇尔）—静态竞争观 新古典学派的完全竞争理论（马歇尔） 完全竞争是指完全不受任何阻碍和干扰的市场结构中 的竞争。竞争是一种均衡状态equilibrium 完全竞争的市场必须具备的条件是： 第一，市场上必须有大量的购买者和出卖者，任何人 占据的市场份额都是微不足道的，均无力影响产品的 价格。 第二，所有产品是同质的，不存在差别。 第三，各类生产要素均可自由流通，每个厂商都能够 按自己的意愿进入或退出某一行业，不受任何限制。 第四，买卖双方均具备完备的市场信息而且反应灵敏， 知悉市场有可能出现的各种情况。
Anti-monopoly Law反垄断法
简明反垄断法The Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) share responsibility for enforcing laws that promote competition in the marketplace. Competition benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality of goods and services high.联邦贸易委员会竞争署和司法部反托拉斯局共同负责实施促进市场竞争的法律。
市场竞争则是通过保持商品的低价以及商品和服务的高质量使消费者受益。
The FTC is a consumer protection agency with two mandates under the FTC Act: to guard the marketplace from unfair methods of competition, and to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices that harm consumers. These tasks often involve the analysis of complex business practices and economic issues. When the Commission succeeds in doing both its jobs, it protects consumer sovereignty -- the freedom to choose goods and services in an open marketplace at a price and quality that fit the consumer’s needs -- and fosters opportunity for businesses by ensuring a level playing field among competitors. In pursuing its work, the FTC can file cases in both federal court and a special administrative forum.联邦贸易委员会是在《联邦贸易委员会法》规制下并拥有其两项授权的一个消费者保护机构：一是引导市场避免不公平的竞争；二是杜绝有损消费者利益的不公平或欺骗性的市场行为。
中国反垄断法最新英文版
中国反垄断法最新英文版(Chinese Antimonopoy Law)Chinese Antimonopoly Law(adopted at the 29th session of the Tenth National People's Congress on August 30, 2007)Chapter 1: General ProvisionsChapter 2: Monopoly AgreementChapter 3: Abuse of a Dominant Market PositionChapter 4: Concentration of UndertakingsChapter 5: Abuse of Administrative Power to Eliminate or Restrict CompetitionChapter 6: Investigation of the Suspected Monopoly ConductsChapter 7: Legal LiabilitiesChapter 8: Supplementary ArticlesTranslated by Jia YuanSeptember 1, 2007Chapter 1: General ProvisionsArticle 1:This Law is enacted for the purpose of preventing and restraining monopolistic conducts, protecting fair competition in the market, enhancing economic efficiency, safeguarding the interests of consumers and social public interest, promoting the healthy development of the socialist market economy.Article 2:This Law shall be applicable to monopolistic conducts in economic activities within the People’s Republic of China.This Law shall apply to the conducts outside the territory of the People’s Republic of China if they eliminate or have restrictive effect on competition on the domestic market of the PRC.Article 3:“Monopolistic conduct” is defined in this law as the following activities:(i) monopolistic agreements among undertakings;(ii) abuse of dominant market positions by undertakings;(iii) concentration of undertakings that eliminates or restricts competition or might be eliminating or restricting competition;Article 4:The State formulates and carries out competition rules which in accordance with the socialist market economy, perfects macro-control, and advances a unified, open, competitive and orderly market system.Article 5:Undertakings shall through fair competition, voluntary alliance，concentrate according to law, expand the scope of operation, and enhance competition ability.Article 6:Undertakings of a dominant position shall be prohibited to abuse a dominant position, eliminate, and restrict competition.Article 7:For the undertaking in the state-owned economy controlled industries to which are related to national economic lifeline and state security, and in the industries to which the state grants special or exclusive rights, the state protect their lawful operation. The state also lawfully regulates and controls their operation and the price of their commodities and services, safeguards interests of consumers, promotes technical progresses.Undertakings mentioned above shall lawfully operate, be honest and faithful, be strict self-discipline, accept social supervision, shall not damage interests of consumers using their dominant or exclusive positions.Article 8:Administrative power by government and organisations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues shall be prohibited to abuse administrative power, to eliminate or restrict competition.Article 9:The State Council establishes the Antimonopoly Commission, which in charge of organizing, coordinating, guiding antimonopoly works, performs the following responsibilities:(i) study and draft related competition policies;(ii) organize research, assess general competition situations in the market, issue assess report; (iii) enact and issue antimonopoly guidelines;(iv) coordinate antimonopoly execution works;(v) other responsibilities stipulated by the State Council.The State Council stipulates composition and working rules of the Antimonopoly Commission.Article 10:Antimonopoly execution authorities are in charge of antimonopoly execution pursuant to this law.Antimonopoly execution authorities shall authorise the corresponded authorities of provincial government or government in an autonomous region or directly municipality to in charge of antimonopoly execution pursuant to this law, when needed.Article 11:Association of undertakings should intensify industrial self-discipline, guide undertakings to lawfully compete, safeguard the competition order in the market.Article 12:An “undertaking” in this law refers to a legal person, other organization or natural person that engages in businesses of commodities (hereinafter “commodities” include services).A “relevant market” in this law refers to the territorial area within which the undertakings compete against each other during a time period for relevant products.Chapter 2: Monopoly AgreementArticle 13:Any following agreements among the undertakings competed with each other shall be prohibited:(i) fix, or change prices of products;(ii) limit the output or sales of the products;(iii) allocate the sales markets or the raw material purchasing markets;(iv) limit the purchase new technology or new facilities, or the development of, new products or new technology;(v) jointly boycott transactions;(vi) other agreements identified by antimonopoly execution authorities.Agreements referred to this law are agreement, decision or concerted action which eliminate or restrict competition.Article 14:Any following agreements among undertaking and counterparty are prohibited:(i) fix the price for resale;(ii) restrict the lowest price for resale;(iii) another monopoly agreement identified by antimonopoly execution authorities.Article 15:Agreements among undertakings with one of the following objectives shall be exempted from application of article 13, 14 if(i) agreements to improve technology, to research and develop new products.(ii) agreements for the purpose of product quality upgrading, cost reduction and efficiency improvement, of unify standards, norms or specialise;(iii) agreements by small and medium-sized enterprises to improve operational efficiency and to enhance their competitiveness;(v) agreements to cope with economic depression, to moderate serious decrease in sales volumes or distinct production surplus;(iv) agreements to achieve public interests, such as save energy, protect environment, relieve the victims of a disaster and so on;(vi) agreements to maintain legitimate interest in the cooperation with foreign economic entities and foreign trade;(vii) other situation stipulated by laws and the State Council.Undertakings pursuant to (i) to (v), and therefore exempted from Article 13, 14, must additionally prove, that the agreements can enable consumers to share impartially the interests derived from the agreements, and will not entirely eliminate the competition in relevant market.Article 16:Association of industry shall be prohibited to organize undertakings to conduct monopoly activities being prohibited by this law.Chapter 3: Abuse of a Dominant Market PositionArticle 17Undertakings of a dominant market position shall not abuse their dominant market positions to conduct following conducts:(i) sell commodities at unfairly high prices or buy commodities at unfairly low prices;(ii) sell commoditiews at prices below cost without legitimate reasons;(iii) refuse to trade with counterparty without legitimate reasons;(iv) require its counterparty to trade exclusively with it or trade exclusively with the appointedundertakings without legitimate reasons;(v) tie products or require as unreasonable conditions for trading without legitimate reasons; (vi) apply dissimilar prices or other transaction terms to equivalent counterparties;(vii) other conducts identified as abuse of a dominant position by antimonopoly execution authoritiesFor the purposes of this law, “dominant market position” refers to the undertaking(s) having the ability to control the price, quantity or other trading conditions of products in relevant market, or to hinder or affect other undertakings to enter the relevant market.Article 18:The following factors will be taken into consideration in finding dominant market position: (i) market share in relevant market, and the competition situation of the relevant market; (ii) ability to control the sales markets or the raw material purchasing markets;(iii) financial status and technical conditions of the undertaking;(iv) the degree of dependence of other undertakings;(v) entry to relevant market by other undertakings;(vi) other factors related to find a dominant market position.Article 19:Undertakings that have any of the following situations can be assumed to be have a dominant market position:(i) the relevant market share of one undertaking accounts for1/2 or above;(ii) the joint relevant market share of two undertakings accounts for 2/3 or above;(iii) the joint relevant market share of three undertakings accounts for 3/4 or above.Undertakings with a market share of less than 1/10 will not be deemed as occupying a dominant market position even if they fall within the scope of second or third item.When the Undertakings assumed to have a dominant market position can prove, that they do not have a dominant market, shall not be assumed to have a dominant market position.Chapter 4: Concentration of UndertakingsArticle 20:A concentration refers to the following situations:(i) the merger of undertakings;(ii) the acquisition by undertakings, whether by purchase of securities or assets, of control of other undertakings;(iii) the acquisition by contact or any other means, of control of other undertakings or of possibility of exercising decisive influence on other undertakings.Article 21:A concentration falls under the notification criteria issued by the State Council, a report must be notify in advance with the antimonopoly execution authorities. Without notification the concentration shall not be implemented.Article 22:A concentration refers to following situations, shall not notify to the antimonopoly execution authorities:(i) one undertaking which is a party to the concentration has the power to exercise more than half the voting rights of every other undertaking, whether of the equity or the asset;(ii) one undertaking which is not a party to the concentration has the power to exercise more than half the voting rights of every undertaking concerned, whether of the equity or the asset;Article 23:Undertakings which notify a concentration in advance with the antimonopoly execution authorities, shall submit following documents or materials:(i) summary of notification;(ii) the effect on competition on the relevant market of the concentration;(iii) agreement of concentration;(iv) the financial reports and accounting reports of the proceeding accounting year of the undertakings concerned;(v) other documents or materials stipulated by antimonopoly execution authorities.The summary of notification shall record, name, residence, scope of business, expected date for concentrating and other items stipulated by antimonopoly execution authorities of the undertakings concerned.Article 24:In case that the documents submitted by the notifying undertakings are not complete, shall submit the rest of the documents and materials with a set period stipulated by antimonopoly execution authorities. It will be taken as not notified, when the added documents and materials are not timely submitted.Article 25:The antimonopoly execution authorities shall preliminarily review the notified concentration and take the decisions whether to precede review and notify the undertakings in written form within 30 days, calculated from the date of receipt of the complete filing documents and materials referred to article 23 submitted by the undertakings.Before a decision taken by the antimonopoly execution authorities, the concentration shall be not implemented.If the antimonopoly execution authorities has taken decision not to precede review or has not decided in case of expiring of the period, the concentration shall be implemented.Article 26:If the antimonopoly execution authorities has decided to precede the review, shall review and decide whether to prohibit the concentration and notify the undertakings in written form within 90 days, calculated form the date of the decision being taken.If the concentration is prohibited, the reasons shall be explained. Within the review period the concentration shall be not implemented.Under the following circumstances, the time limit stipulated in the first paragraph may be extended to add 60 days after notifying the undertakings in written form:(i) the undertakings concerned agree to extend the time limit;(ii) the documents or materials submitted are inaccurate and need verification;(iii) other significant events occurred after notification.If the antimonopoly execution authorities have not decided in case of expiring of the period, the concentration shall be implemented.In the review of a concentration the following factors shall be considered:(i) market share in the relevant market of the undertakings concerned and their ability to control the market;(ii) concentrate degree of the relevant market ;(iii) effect on the market entry and technology improvement;(iv) effect on consumers and other undertakings;(v) effect on national economical improvement(vi) other factors shall affect the competition, be considered by the antimonopoly execution authorities.Article 28:If a concentration has or may have effect of eliminating or restricting competition, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall take decision of prohibition. However, if the undertakings can prove that the concentration bring more positive effect than negative effect on competition, or the concentration pursuant to public interests, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall decide, not to prohibit the concentration.Article 29:The antimonopoly execution authorities shall make a decision of approval with restrictions and conditions where a concentration will reduce the negative effect on competition.Article 30:The antimonopoly execution authorities shall announce the decisions of prohibition or conditional concentration to public.In case the acquisition of domestic enterprises by foreign investors or other manners to concentrate referred to national security, besides being reviewed according to this law, shall be carried out national safety review according to related regulations.Chapter 5: Abuse of Administrative Power to Eliminate or Restrict CompetitionArticle 32:Administrative power by government and organisations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues shall not abuse administrative power to limit or limit in a different form the organizations or persons to operate, purchase or use the products of any undertakings designated by them.Article 33:Administrative power by government and organisations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues shall not abuse administrative power to carry out following conducts, to hinder the free flow of the commodities between regions:(i) create discriminated items, carry out discriminated standards, or stipulate discriminated prices to nonlocal commodities.(ii) stipulate different technical requisition, test standards to nonlocal an local commodities, or conduct repeat testing, repeat certification and so on, in order to limit nonlocal commodities to enter local market;(iii) specially require administrative permit to counter nonlocal commodities, in order to limit nonlocal commodities to enter local market;(iv) create burdens or other methods to limit nonlocal commodities enter or local commodities exit;(v) other conducts which hinder commodities free flow between regions.Administrative power by government and organisations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues shall not abuse administrative power to exclude or restrict nonlocal undertakings to participate local bids activities through the manners that they create discriminated quality requisitions, judge standards or not announce information according to law.Article 35:Administrative power by government and organisations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues shall not abuse administrative power to exclude or restrict nonlocal undertakings to set up branches through that they give unfair treatment to nonlocal undertakings.Article 36:Administrative power by government and organisations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues shall not abuse administrative power to force the undertakings to carry out monopoly conducts according to this law.Article 37:Administrative power shall not abuse administrative power to stipulate regulations including contents to eliminate or restrict competition.Chapter 6: Investigation of the Suspected Monopoly ConductsArticle 38:The antimonopoly execution authorities investigate monopoly conducts according to law.Refers to antimonopoly conduct, any organization or person has the right to report to the antimonopoly execution authorities. The antimonopoly execution authorities shall keep the secret for the reporter.If the report is submitted in written form and supplies related facts and proofs, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall conduct necessary investigation.Article 39:When conducting investigations, the antimonopoly execution authorities can take the following measures:(i) enter the premise or other related places of the undertakings being investigated;(ii) request the undertaking concerned, interested parties and other relevant organizations or persons being investigated to explain related circumstances;(iii) exam, copy related documents and materials of the undertakings, interested parties and other relevant organizations or persons being investigated, such as certificates, agreements, accounting books, letters and telegraphs of business, electronic data and so on.(iv) seal up or detain related proofs;(v) inquire about the bank account information of the undertakings concerned.Taking the measures stipulated above, shall be reported in written form to the chef person in charge of the antimonopoly execution authorities, and be approved.Article 40:Investigating the suspected monopoly conducts by the antimonopoly execution authorities, the executors shall be not less than two persons, and shall show the papers of execution.The executor conduct inquiring and investigating, shall fabricate written notes which are signature by the inquired or investigated person.Article 41:The antimonopoly execution authorities and their staffs shall be obliged to keep the secret which known in the execution.Article 42:Undertakings concerned, interested parties or other related organizations or persons being investigated shall cooperate with the antimonopoly execution authorities by performing responsibility, shall not refuse or hinder the antimonopoly execution authorities to investigate.Article 43:Undertakings concerned, interested parties being investigated have the right to state opinions. The antimonopoly execution authorities shall verify the facts, reasons and proofs being given by undertakings concerned, interested parties being investigated.Article 44:After investigating and verifying the suspected monopoly conducts, if the antimonopoly execution authorities believe that monopoly conduct was done, shall take decisions according to law and publish it.Article 45:In case of a suspected monopoly conduct being investigated by the antimonopoly execution authorities, if the undertakings being investigated promise that they will conduct concrete measures to eliminate the negative effect of the monopoly conducts within a time limit being acknowledged by the antimonopoly execution authorities, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall decide to suspend the investigation. The decision to suspend the investigation shall note what concrete was promised by the undertakings being investigated.If the antimonopoly execution authorities decide to suspend investigation, shall supervision the circumstances in which undertakings perform their promises. If the undertakings have performed the promises, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall decide to stop the investigation.Under the following circumstances, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall regain theinvestigation:(i) undertakings have not performed the promises;(ii) the fact being applied to suspend the investigation has significant changed.(iii) the decision to suspend the investigation is based on uncompleted or untruthful information being supplied by the undertakings.Chapter 7: Legal LiabilitiesArticle 46:In case there exists monopoly agreement and is implemented by the undertakings in violation of this law, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall order the undertakings to cease such act, the illegal gains shall be confiscated, and a fine between 1% and 10% of the turnover in the preceding year shall be imposed; If the monopoly agreement is not implemented, a fine below 500,000 Yuan shall be imposed.If the undertakings actively report the circumstance of the monopoly agreement to the antimonopoly execution authorities and supply important proofs, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall reduce or remit the fines according to own judgement.If the association of undertakings organise undertakings of the branch to reach monopoly agreement in violation of this law, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall impose a fine below 500,000 Yuan; and if the circumstances are serious, the social organization register administrative department shall dissolve the register.Article 47:In case there exists an act abusing dominant market position by the undertakings in violation of this law, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall order the undertakings to cease such act, the illegal gains shall be confiscated, and a fine between 1% and 10% of the turnover in the preceding year shall be imposed.Article 48:In case the undertakings concentrate in violation of this law, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall order the undertakings to cease concentration, dispose securities or assets in limited time, transfer the operation and conduct other necessary measures to regain the status before the concentration, a fine below 500,000 shall be imposed.Article 49:Referred to the fines of article 46, 47, 48 of this law, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall consider the nature, degree and time of duration of the violation, to decide concrete amount of fine.Article 50:If undertakings carry out monopoly conduct, and cause losses to others, shall bear civil liability according to law.Article 51:If administrative power by government and organisations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues abuse administrative power, to eliminate or restrict competition, shall be ordered by superior authorities to correct themselves; people in direct charge and people directly involved shall be imposed administrative punishment. The antimonopoly execution authorities shall supply suggestion to related superior authorities to handle according to law.If administrative power by government and organisations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues abuse administrative power, to eliminate or restrict competition will be handled by another regulation, shall be applied to another regulation.Article 52:In reviewing and investigating by the antimonopoly execution authorities, if they refuse to supply related materials, information, or supply incorrect materials, information, or remove, hide or destroy proofs, or other conducts to refuse or hinder investigation, the antimonopoly execution authorities shall order the undertakings to cease such act, A fine not to exceed20,000 Yuan to individuals and 200,000 Yuan to organization may be assessed. If the circumstances are serious, a fine not to between 20,000 Yuan and 100,000 Yuan to individuals and between 200,000 Yuan and 1000,000 Yuan to organization may be assessed; if the said act constitutes a criminal offence, prosecution will be launched according to law.Article 53:If the undertaking does not accept the decision made by the antimonopoly execution authorities according to article 28, 29 of this law, he/she shall in the first place apply for administrative review; and if the undertaking still disagree with the decision of the administrative review, he/she may file a administrative lawsuit according to law.If the undertaking does not accept the decision made by the antimonopoly execution authorities besides the decisions stipulated by first paragraph, he/she shall apply for administrative review according to law or file administrative lawsuit.Article 54:Any employee of the antimonopoly execution authorities who abuse his official power, neglect his duties, engage in malpractices or irregularities, or disclose any trade secret, constitute a criminal offence, prosecution will be launched according to law. Where the act is not so serious as to be prosecuted for criminal liability, he shall be imposed the administrative penalty according to law.Chapter 8: Supplementary ArticlesArticle 55:Undertakings exercise intellectual property rights according to laws , administrative regulations related intellectual property rights, shall not be applied to this law; however, undertakings abuse the intellectual property rights to eliminate or restrict competition, shall be applied to this law.Article 56:Agricultural producers and rural economic organizations alliance or concerted act in the producing, processing, selling, transporting or reserving agricultural products shall be not applied to this law.Article 57:This law is effective as of August 1, 2008译者：袁嘉译者对本翻译稿具有著作权,如有转载,请说明出处.。
法律法规名称中英对照
法律法规名称中英对照中华人民共和国发票管理办法Measures of the People's Republic of China for the Control of Invoices中华人民共和国澳门特别行政区基本法THE Basic Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国版权法Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国保守国家秘密法Law of the People's Republic of China on Guarding State Secrets 中华人民共和国保险法Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国标准化法Standardization Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国兵役法Military Service Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国草原法Grassland Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国测绘法Surveying and Mapping Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国城市房地产管理法Law of the People's Republic of China on Administration of the Urban Real Estate中华人民共和国城市规划法City Planning Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国城市居民委员会组织法Organic Law of the Urban Residents Committee of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国村民委员会组织法Organic Law of the Villagers Committees of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国大气污染防治法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution (Amended on 8/29/1995)中华人民共和国大气污染防治法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution中华人民共和国地方各级人民代表大会和地方各级人民政府组织法Organic Law of the Local People's Congresses and Local People's Governments of the People's Republic of China (Amended in 1995)中华人民共和国缔结条约程序法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Procedure of the conclusion of Treaties中华人民共和国电力法Electricity Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国对外贸易法Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国对外贸易法Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国法官法Judges Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国防空法Civil Air Defense Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国妇女权益保护法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Rights and Interests of Women中华人民共和国个人所得税法Individual Income T ax Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国公民出境入境管理法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Control of the Exit and Entry of Citizens中华人民共和国公民出境入境管理法实施细则Rules for Implementation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Control of the Exit and Entry of Citizens (Amended on 7/15/1994) 中华人民共和国公民出入境管理法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Control of the Exitand Entry of Citizens中华人民共和国公司法Company Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国归侨侨眷权益保护法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Returned Overseas Chinese and the Family Members of Overseas Chinese中华人民共和国国防法National defense law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国国徽法Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Emblem中华人民共和国国籍法Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国国家安全法State Security Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国国家赔偿法Law of the People's Republic of China on State Compensation中华人民共和国国境卫生检疫法Frontier Health and Quarantine Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国国旗法Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Flag中华人民共和国国务院组织法Organic Law of the State Council of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国海关法Customs Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国海商法Maritime Code of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国海上交通安全法Maritime Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国海洋环境保护法Marine Environment Protection Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国海洋环境保护法Marine Environment Protection Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国海域使用管理法Sea Area Use Management Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国合伙企业登记管理办法Measures of the People's Republic of China for the Administration of Partnership Enterprise Registration中华人民共和国红十字标志使用办法Provisions of the People's Republic of China on the Use of Red Cross Signs中华人民共和国红十字会法Law of the People's Republic of China on Red Cross Society中华人民共和国环境保护法Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国婚姻法Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国集会游行示威法Law of the People's Republic of China on Assemblies, Processions and Demonstrations中华人民共和国计量法Metrology Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国继承法Law of Succession of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国监狱法Prison Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国检察官法Public Procurators Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国节约能源法Energy Conservation Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国戒严法Martial Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国进出口商品检验法Law of The People's Republic of China on Import and Export Com-Modity Inspection中华人民共和国军事设施保护法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Military Installations中华人民共和国科学技术进步法Law of the People's Republic of China on Science and Technology Progress中华人民共和国矿产资源法Mineral Resources Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国领海及毗连区法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone中华人民共和国民法通则General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国民事诉讼法Civil Procedure Law of The People's Republic 0f China中华人民共和国民事诉讼法（1991）Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国民用航空法Civil Aviation Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国民族区域自治法Law of the People's Republic of China on Regional National Autonomy中华人民共和国拍卖法Auction Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国企业法人登记管理条例Regulations of the People's Republic of China for Controlling the Registration of Enterprises As Legal Persons中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会和地方各级人民代表大会选举法Electoral Law of the National People's Congress and Local People's Congress of the People's Republic of China (Amended in 1995)中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会组织法Organic Law of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国人民警察法People's Police Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国森林法Forestry Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国商标法Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国商标法（修正）Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国涉外经济合同法Law of The People's Republic of China on Economic Contracts involving Foreign Interest中华人民共和国食品卫生法（1995）Food Hygiene Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国收养法（1998年11月4日修改）Adoption Law of the People's Republic of China (Amended on 11/4/1998)中华人民共和国水法Water Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国水污染防治法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution中华人民共和国水污染防治法（1996）Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution (Amended on 5/15/1996)中华人民共和国税收征收管理法（1995）Law of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of T ax Collection (Amended on 2/28/1995)中华人民共和国条约缔结程序法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Procedure of the Conclusion of Treaties中华人民共和国统计法Statistics Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国土地管理法实施条例Regulations on the Implementation of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (1998)中华人民共和国外国企业所得税法The Foreign Enterprise Income T ax Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国外国人出入境管理法Law of the People's Republic of China on Control of the Entry and Exit of Aliens中华人民共和国外国人入境出境管理法Law of the People's Republic of China on Control of the Entry and Exit of Aliens中华人民共和国外国人入境出境管理法实施细则Rules for Implementation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Control of the Entry and Exit of Aliens中华人民共和国外商投资企业和外国企业所得税法Income T ax Law of The People's Republic of China for Enterprises with Foreign Investment and Foreign Enterprises中华人民共和国外资企业法Law of the People's Republic of China on Foreign-Capital Enterprises中华人民共和国未成年人保护法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Minors 中华人民共和国文物保护法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Cultural Relics中华人民共和国宪法Constitution of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国宪法修正案Amendment to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国宪法修正案（1988）Amendment to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China (1988)中华人民共和国献血法Blood Donation Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国香港特别行政区选举第九届全国人民代表大会代表的办法Procedures for the Election of Delegates of the Hong Kong SAR of the People's Republic of China to the Ninth NPC中华人民共和国香港特别行政区驻军法Garrison Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国香港特别行政区驻军法Law of the People's Republic of China on Garrisoning the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests中华人民共和国刑法Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国行政处罚法The Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Punishments中华人民共和国行政诉讼法Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国烟草专卖法Law of the People's Republic of China on Tobacco Monopoly中华人民共和国药品管理法Pharmaceutical Administration Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国药品管理法实施办法Measures for the Implementation of the Pharmaceutical Administration Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国野生动物保护法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Wild Life中华人民共和国野生动物保护法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Wildlife中华人民共和国义务教育法Compulsory Education Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国邮政法Postal Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国预备役军官法Reserve Officers Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国中国人民银行法Law of the People's Republic of China on the People's Bank of China中华人民共和国中外合资经营企业法Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures中华人民共和国中外合作经营企业法Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese Foreign Contractual Joint Ventures中华人民共和国仲裁法Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国著作权法Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国专利法（修正）Patent Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国专属经济区和大陆架法Law of the People's Republic of China on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf。
法学专业外文翻译外文文献英文文献从中国反垄断立法看行政垄断的法律规制
法学专业外文翻译外文文献英文文献从中国反垄断立法看行政垄断的法律规制Legal Regulation of Administrative Monopoly As Viewed fromChinese Antimonopoly LawLing WangLaw school of Shandong University of TechnologyZibo 255049, Shandong, ChinaAbstractThe administrative monopoly breaks the principle of justice, and has large harm to the society. The special chapter in Chinese Antimonopoly Law regulates the contents and corresponding legal responsibilities of administrative monopoly, but the law still has some deficiencies. The Chinese Antimonopoly Law should be perfected from increasing the operation property, confirming the comprehensive legal responsibilities, confirming the law enforcement agency of anti-administrative monopoly, expanding the range of legal regulation and establishing the judicial review system.Keywords: Chinese Antimonopoly Law, Administrative monopoly, RegulationIn china, the administrative monopoly mainly means the behaviors that administrative subjects harm the market competition and destroy socialism market economy order by the administrative power. The administrative monopoly initially belongs to economic monopoly, and its harm is more than economic monopoly, and it destroys the principle of justice, and induces the occurrence of unfair competition and monopoly in special market, and it harms the benefits of most market subjects,and largely wastes effective resources, and blocks the establishment and perfection of the socialism market competition mechanism. Therefore, it should seek solution and regulation methods from various approaches for the administrative monopoly. Only in this way, the obstacle of Chinese economic system reform and the development of market economy can be removed, which can promote the quick development of economy, enhance the living level of people, improve the total survival environment, and realize the harmony and stability of the society.1. Regulation of administrative monopoly in Chinese Antimonopoly LawFor the regulation of administrative monopoly, there are many researches and discussions among Chinese scholars, and the system reform view and the legal regulation view are representative views. The system reform view thinks that the administrative monopoly is the product of system, and it can be completely solved by deepening the economic system reform and the political system reform, and the legal measure is hard to solve the problem of administrative monopoly. The central content of the legal regulation view is that the administrative monopoly is very harmful, and it must be forbidden mainly by the laws. The legal regulation view is also can be divided into two factions, and one is to mainly use the administrative law to regulate the administrative monopoly, and the other thinks that Chinese Antimonopoly Law is the main power to regulate the administrative monopoly.Because Chinese economic and political system reform is a gradual process which needs quite long-term endeavors, and this transfer needs large patient and willpower, so the administrativemonopoly has been a very hot potato at present, and it has seriously blocked the economic development of China with large social harms, and it even blocks the economic and political system reforms which is being in China, so it must be forbidden as soon as possible, or else, the large destroying function on the development of Chinese economy will be hard to image. Therefore, it is too ideal to only depend on the system reform to regulate the administrative monopoly, and the effect is not obvious. In the present national situation, law is the feasible measure to regulate the administrative monopoly. Because the administrative monopoly roots in economic monopoly and has many characters and harms of economic monopoly, more and more legal scholars want to utilize Chinese Antimonopoly Law to regulate the administrative monopoly. “It is the characteristic of Chinese Antimonopoly Law to take the administrative monopoly as the control object of antimonopoly, and it seems a necessary selection according to the national situation, because the administrative monopoly forming in traditional planned economy system is impossible to be removed by administrative measure, and it can only be solved by the legal measure, i.e. the Antimonopoly Law (Zhang, 1993, P.357)”.At August 1 of 2008, Chinese Antimonopoly Law became effective in people’s expectations, and the fifth chapter specially regulates the content of administrative monopoly, and the articles from 32 to 37 respectively generalize the elimination of administrative power abuse and the behaviors of competition limitation, and completely regulate the concrete represent form of administrative monopoly, and article 51 regulates corresponding legalresponsibilities. Thus，the regulation of administrativemonopoly is first regulated in law, andthe legal approach is the main measure to govern the administrative monopoly, which indicated that the legal regulation view had been adopted finally. The contents of administrative monopoly in the Antimonopoly Law embodies the advancement of Chinese legal theory study and legislation technology, and it showed the decision of Chinese legislators to standardize the enforcement of administrative power and stop the abuse of administrative power. Of course, law is only one most important measure to regulate the administrative monopoly, and the reasonable and effective reforms in polity and economy also have very important meanings for the regulation of administrative monopoly behaviors.2. Deficiencies of administrative monopoly regulation in Chinese Antimonopoly LawRelative regulations about administrative monopoly in Chinese Antimonopoly Law are active and helpful exploration to regulate administrative monopoly behaviors by law, and corresponding legal regulations are deeply meaningful and influencing to eliminate the bad influences of administrative monopoly, promote the fair competition, establish normal market order, and guarantee the ordered development of market economy. However, whether relative corresponding systems or the articles in the chapter 5 still have some deficiencies, and the anti-administrative monopoly much still remains to be done.2.1 Regulations are too fundamental to operateThe articles in the chapter 5 of Chinese Antimonopoly Law are some principled articles lacking in operation, which make the judiciary and law enforcement agencies are difficult to distinguish. And many abstract concepts such as what extent canachieve administrative monopoly, and what is that the abuse of administrative power to block the free circulation of commodities can not be defined clearly in only five legal articles, so the catchwords ofanti-administrative monopoly appear incapable. At August 1 of 2008, the first day when Chinese Antimonopoly Law was implemented, Chinese State Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine encountered the first case about Chinese Antimonopoly Law. However, in the expectation of ten thousands of people, this case came to an untimely end, and though the court adopted the article that the limitation of actions was over to evade this case, but it can be supposed that if the court can not evade it by relative reasons, what is the result? Was the behavior that Chinese State Administration of Quality Supervision forced to push the electric supervision code business of Citic Guoan Information Technology Co., Ltd with its own shares in 69 kinds of product an administrative monopoly behavior? The result might reach the same goal by different routes. And relative regulations about the current antimonopoly law endow law-officers too much discretion to make them to “go after profits and avoid disadvantages”.2.2 The regulations about the legal responsibility of administrative monopoly are deficientChinese Antimonopoly Law regulates the civil, administrative and criminal responsibilities assumed by managers who implement monopoly behaviors in detail, but for the legal responsibility of the behaviors of administrative monopoly, only the article 51 of Chinese Antimonopoly L aw regulates that “If administrative power by government and organizations to whichlaws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues abuse administrative power, to eliminate or restrict competition, shall be ordered by superior authorities to correct themselves; people in direct charge and people directly involved shall be imposed administrative punishment. The antimonopoly execution authorities shall supply suggestion to related superior authorities to handle according to law.” Many administra tive responsibilities such as “shall be ordered by superior authorities to correct themselves; people in direct cha rge and people directly involved shall be imposed administrative punishment” form different legal results of different subjects to implement monopoly behaviors, so peoplebegin to suspect the justice of laws, which virtually helps the administrative subjects to implement administrative monopoly, and the deterrent force will be reduced largely. At the same time, though the responsibility of Chinese Antimonopoly Law is too lighter and becomes a mere formality, and the law is not obeyed and strictly enforced, so the administrative monopoly remains incessant after repeated prohibition.2.3 The jurisdiction of antimonopoly law enforcement institution is limitedThe definition about the anti-administrative monopoly law enforcement agency in the fifty first article of Chinese Antimonopoly Law is still blurry, and on the one hand, the supervision procedures should be independently established to restrain laws by this law, and on the other hand, the law regulates that the administrative monopoly should be dominated by superior authorities, and the article that “If administrative power by government and organizations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues abuse administrativepower, to eliminate or restrict competition will be handled by another regulation, shall be applied to another regulation” has left large space for the rights of relative departments and supervision institutions, which has eliminated the jurisdiction of anti-administrative monopoly law enforcement agent to the administrative monopoly. At the same time, it is not reasonable to handle the behaviors of administrative monopoly by the superior authority of lawbreaker for the legal responsibilities. The superior authority is not a specific authority, because the authorities implementing administrative monopoly are different, and the law enforcement has be decomposed to various functional authorities, which will easily induce repeat law enforcements or blank law enforcement. Furthermore, the superior authority is not the authority to specially dominate administrative monopoly, or the special judicial authority, and it just is common law enforcement authority (Wang, 2007). Staffs in superior authority may not have strong antimonopoly consciousness, and both the cognition and treatment result all lack in authorities, and they also lack in the ability to teat the cases about administrative monopoly.2.4 The range of administrative monopoly regulation is too narrowThe article 33 of Chinese Antimonopoly Law limits the object of administrative monopoly in the domain of goods trade. “Administrative power by government and organizations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues shall not abuse administrative power to carry out following conducts, to hinder the free flow of the commodities between regions”. In fact, the character of the transfer of modern economic industry structure is that the proportion of the serviceindustry is enhanced increasingly, and if the object of the anti-administrative monopoly is only limited in the domain of goods trade, the domain which is bigger and occupies more proportion will be abandoned out of the supervision of Chinese Antimonopoly Law. Though the article 34 forbids and excludes that exterior managers participate in local bid invitation and bidding activities, and the article 35 forbids and excludes that exterior managers invest or establish branches including the domainof service trade in local region, but there are many items in the service industry out of these two ranges, and the legal regulation about administrative monopoly behaviors in the domain of service industry is still blank in Chinese Antimonopoly Law.2.5 Regulation measures for abstract administrative monopoly are deficientThough Chinese Antimonopoly Law has prohibitive regulations about the behaviors of abstract administrative monopoly, but it regulates nothing about legal responsibility and relief ways. If the illegal behavior of abstract administration can not be redressed in time in practice, it will always induce larger harm (Huang, 2001). Many administrative monopoly behaviors in practice are implemented by the mode of abstract administrative monopoly behavior, and even certain concrete administrative monopoly behavior is always done according to administrative rules, but these rules must be examined and approved, recorded or agreed by superior people’s governments or charge authorities, and when they are dissented, the judgment right is always in original authorities which will be hard to deny the rules and byelaws what they constituted. In addition, most countriesadopt the judicial review system to treat the abstract administrative behavior by the mode of inefficacy or nonexistence, but this system in Chinese Antimonopoly Law is deficient, so the illegal behaviors of administrative subject is hard to be redressed.3. Perfection of administrative monopoly regulation in Chinese Antimonopoly LawAbove aspects about the legal regulation for the administrative monopoly in Chinese Antimonopoly Law all need to be perfected and simple opinions are offered as follows.3.1 Using foreign mature experiences as references and increasing the operation feature of Chinese Antimonopoly Law Law enforcement should be executed according to laws, and that means the clear description of legal concepts is the premise to exactly enforce laws, and the specific description of legal rules is the base to enforce laws strictly, but the problems about administrative monopoly in Chinese Antimonopoly are very complex, and some legal concepts have not been defined, and detailed legal standards and concrete legal responsibility should be further confirmed. Therefore, the content of the chapter 5 in Chinese Antimonopoly Law can be regarded as the principled legal rules to regulate administrative monopoly, and the explanation of general principles is a complex and hard task, just as when US modified the Antimonopoly Law, it added the word of “efficiency judgment”, and the American Competition Bureau used 13000 words to explain it. It is necessary to explain the criterion of general rules, and only to constitute suited rules as soon as possibly, and explain the principled articles in detail, the operation character of Chinese Antimonopoly Law can be added, and the uniform law enforcement standards can beestablished to effectively regulate the administrative monopoly behaviors by law.3.2 Establishing various administrative monopoly legal responsibility systemsThe past laws in China only regulated administrative monopoly by administrative responsibility, but ignored the function of civil responsibility and criminal responsibility. To more effectively regulate administrative monopoly, the particularity of administrative monopoly should be considered fully, and constitute comprehensive legal responsibilities including administrative responsibility, civil responsibility and criminal responsibility. When maintaining special competitors’ benefits, the behavior of administrative monopoly harms other competitors’ competition right at the same time, and it belongs to a kind of tort, and it should assume corresponding civil responsibility, and though the administrative responsibility includes the system of administrative compensation, but the range of administrative compensation is limited. And to better protect relative parties’ legal rights, Chinese Antimonopoly Law should specially regulate that victims of administrative monopoly have rights to institute civil actions, and obtain corresponding civil damages. At the same time, the behavior of administrative monopoly has large social harm, and it should be adjusted by the criminal law when it seriously harms the society, and furthermore, the social harm extent achieved by administrative monopoly is far bigger than some economic crimes and occupational crimes regulated in current criminal laws, so the measure of criminal punishment is necessary to be adopted.3.3 Confirming independent antimonopoly law enforcement institutions and perfect the law enforcement systemThe legal construction in China is to solve practical problems in the final analysis, and the setup of antimonopoly law enforcement institution is not exceptional. The antimonopoly law enforcement institution should be highly independent. To keep the independent is the life line of antimonopoly law enforcement institution, and the meaning of antimonopoly law, that is also the successful experience to effectively execute antimonopoly laws in most countries. And antimonopoly law enforcement institution must have high specialty character, and the antimonopoly law enforcement is not simple market management, and it comes down to the contents about economy, law and management, so it is a complex project. Professional organization system is the important factor to guarantee the effective operation of law enforcement institution.Independent and professional antimonopoly institution should be endowed by extensive administrative power, quasi-legislative power and quasi-judicial power, and that is the need to regulate administrative monopoly in China and the requirement to treat the development of international antimonopoly.3.4 Combining the generalization mode with the listing mode to specially limit the range of administrative monopoly Because Chinese Antimonopoly Law defines the range of administrative monopoly by the listing mode, and it is mainly limited in the domain of goods trade, which induces that the regulation range of administrative monopoly in China is too narrow and lacks incorresponding flexibility. Using foreign relative experiences as references, China should adopt the mode combining the generalization mode with the listing mode to define the range ofadministrative monopoly.On the one hand, the main representative form of administrative monopoly should be listed specially, and the concrete regulations to regulate administrative monopoly behaviors in the domain of servicing industry should be added. And according to these rules, the antimonopoly law enforcement institutions should quickly judge representative administrative monopoly behaviors, and predict its legal result and increase the efficiency. On the other hand, according to relative authority data, the range of the industry about the national economy and the people’s livelihood should be specially defined, and the monopoly of these indu stries should be protected by laws, and the protective range and degree should also be defined, and for the behavior to illegally expand the monopoly range, corresponding punishment measures should be regulated.Through above analysis, the legal regulation of administrative monopoly behaviors in China just starts, and the relative rules about the administrative monopoly behaviors in Chinese Antimonopoly Law needs to be further perfected and crystallized, and the legal responsibilities about the administrative monopoly behaviors and the jurisdiction of law enforcement institution need to be further confirmed, and the regulation range of administration monopoly needs to be further expanded, and corresponding juridical relief approaches need to be gradually established. At the same time , the system reforms in the economic and political domain need to be further deepened, and the continual perfection of system reform can essentially reduce and stop the happening of administrative monopoly behaviors, and both the system reform and the legal regulation need to be strengthened, which is the essential way tosolve the problem of administrative monopoly.从中国反垄断立法看行政垄断的法律规制Ling Wang山东科技大学法学院摘要：行政垄断打破了公正原则，并且具有较大的社会危害性。
国际商务名词解释
GNP国民生产总值: Gross national Product. The market value of goods and service produced by the property and labor owned by the economy.GDP 国内生产总值： Gross Domestic product. The market value of all goods and services produced within the geographic area of an economy.Anti-dumping duty反倾销税: a tax levied by a country on imports that it believes to constitute dumping in its own market. Anti-monopoly law反垄断法: a law used to prevent companies from fixing prices, carving up the market, and gaining unfair monopoly advantagesBalance of payments国际收支平衡: a statistical system that records all external expenditure and income activities of a country第一部分金融绝对购买力评价：本国货币与外国货币之间的均衡汇率是通过两国货币之间的购买力或物价水平表现出来的Absolute purchasing power evaluation: the exchange rate between domestic and foreign currencies is expressed by the purchasing power or price level between the two currencies 相对购买力评价：两国之间的通货膨胀率决定两种货币之间的均衡汇率Relative purchasing power evaluation: the inflation rate between the two countries determines the exchange rate between the two currencies短期投资是指企业购入的各种能随时变现、持有时间不超过一年的有价证券，以及不超过一年的其他投资Short-term investment refers to all kinds of securities purchased by enterprises that can be realized at any time and held for no more than one year, as well as other investments that do not exceed one year.长期投资是指不准备随时变现，持有时间超过1年的企业对外投资Long-term investment refers to the outward investment of an enterprise that is not ready to be realized at any time and has been held for more than one year.对冲指特意减低另一项投资的风险的投资。
法学专业 外文翻译 外文文献 英文文献 从中国反垄断立法看行政垄断的法律规制
Legal Regulation of Administrative Monopoly As Viewed fromChinese Antimonopoly LawLing WangLaw school of Shandong University of TechnologyZibo 255049, Shandong, ChinaAbstractThe administrative monopoly breaks the principle of justice, and has large harm to the society. The special chapter in Chinese Antimonopoly Law regulates the contents and corresponding legal responsibilities of administrative monopoly, but the law still has some deficiencies. The Chinese Antimonopoly Law should be perfected from increasing the operation property, confirming the comprehensive legal responsibilities, confirming the law enforcement agency of anti-administrative monopoly, expanding the range of legal regulation and establishing the judicial review system.Keywords: Chinese Antimonopoly Law, Administrative monopoly, RegulationIn china, the administrative monopoly mainly means the behaviors that administrative subjects harm the market competition and destroy socialism market economy order by the administrative power. The administrative monopoly initially belongs to economic monopoly, and its harm is more than economic monopoly, and it destroys the principle of justice, and induces the occurrence of unfair competition and monopoly in special market, and it harms the benefits of most market subjects, and largely wastes effective resources, and blocks the establishment and perfection of the socialism market competition mechanism. Therefore, it should seek solution and regulation methods from various approaches for the administrative monopoly. Only in this way, the obstacle of Chinese economic system reform and the development of market economy can be removed, which can promote the quick development of economy, enhance the living level of people, improve the total survival environment, and realize the harmony and stability of the society.1. Regulation of administrative monopoly in Chinese Antimonopoly LawFor the regulation of administrative monopoly, there are many researches and discussions among Chinese scholars, and the system reform view and the legal regulation view are representative views. The system reform view thinks that the administrative monopoly is the product of system, and it can be completely solved by deepening the economic system reform and the political system reform, and the legal measure is hard to solve the problem of administrative monopoly. The central content of the legal regulation view is that the administrative monopoly is very harmful, and it must be forbidden mainly bythe laws. The legal regulation view is also can be divided into two factions, and one is to mainly use the administrative law to regulate the administrative monopoly, and the other thinks that Chinese Antimonopoly Law is the main power to regulate the administrative monopoly.Because Chinese economic and political system reform is a gradual process which needs quite long-term endeavors, and this transfer needs large patient and willpower, so the administrative monopoly has been a very hot potato at present, and it has seriously blocked the economic development of China with large social harms, and it even blocks the economic and political system reforms which is being in China, so it must be forbidden as soon as possible, or else, the large destroying function on the development of Chinese economy will be hard to image. Therefore, it is too ideal to only depend on the system reform to regulate the administrative monopoly, and the effect is not obvious. In the present national situation, law is the feasible measure to regulate the administrative monopoly. Because the administrative monopoly roots in economic monopoly and has many characters and harms of economic monopoly, more and more legal scholars want to utilize Chinese Antimonopoly Law to regulate the administrative monopoly. “It is the characteristic of Chinese Antimonopoly Law to take the administrative monopoly as the control object of antimonopoly, and it seems a necessary selection according to the national situation, because the administrative monopoly forming in traditional planned economy system is impossible to be removed by administrative measure, and it can only be solved by the legal measure, i.e. the Antimonopoly Law (Zhang, 1993, P.357)”.At August 1 of 2008, Chinese Antimonopoly Law became effective in people’s expectations, and the fifth chapter specially regulates the content of administrative monopoly, and the articles from 32 to 37 respectively generalize the elimination of administrative power abuse and the behaviors of competition limitation, and completely regulate the concrete represent form of administrative monopoly, and article 51 regulates corresponding legalresponsibilities. Thus，the regulation of administrative monopoly is first regulated in law, andthe legal approach is the main measure to govern the administrative monopoly, which indicated that the legal regulation view had been adopted finally. The contents of administrative monopoly in the Antimonopoly Law embodies the advancement of Chinese legal theory study and legislation technology, and it showed the decision of Chinese legislators to standardize the enforcement of administrative power and stop the abuse of administrative power. Of course, law is only one most important measure to regulate the administrative monopoly, and the reasonable and effective reforms in polity and economy also have very important meanings for the regulation of administrative monopoly behaviors.2. Deficiencies of administrative monopoly regulation in Chinese Antimonopoly LawRelative regulations about administrative monopoly in Chinese Antimonopoly Law are active and helpful exploration to regulate administrative monopoly behaviors by law, and corresponding legal regulations are deeply meaningful and influencing to eliminate the bad influences of administrative monopoly, promote the fair competition, establish normal market order, and guarantee the ordered development of market economy. However, whether relative corresponding systems or the articles in the chapter 5 still have some deficiencies, and the anti-administrative monopoly much still remains to be done.2.1 Regulations are too fundamental to operateThe articles in the chapter 5 of Chinese Antimonopoly Law are some principled articles lacking in operation, which make the judiciary and law enforcement agencies are difficult to distinguish. And many abstract concepts such as what extent can achieve administrative monopoly, and what is that the abuse of administrative power to block the free circulation of commodities can not be defined clearly in only five legal articles, so the catchwords ofanti-administrative monopoly appear incapable. At August 1 of 2008, the first day when Chinese Antimonopoly Law was implemented, Chinese State Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine encountered the first case about Chinese Antimonopoly Law. However, in the expectation of ten thousands of people, this case came to an untimely end, and though the court adopted the article that the limitation of actions was over to evade this case, but it can be supposed that if the court can not evade it by relative reasons, what is the result? Was the behavior that Chinese State Administration of Quality Supervision forced to push the electric supervision code business of Citic Guoan Information Technology Co., Ltd with its own shares in 69 kinds of product an administrative monopoly behavior? The result might reach the same goal by different routes. And relative regulations about the current antimonopoly law endow law-officers too much discretion to make them to “go after profits and avoid disadvantages”.2.2 The regulations about the legal responsibility of administrative monopoly are deficientChinese Antimonopoly Law regulates the civil, administrative and criminal responsibilities assumed by managers who implement monopoly behaviors in detail, but for the legal responsibility of the behaviors of administrative monopoly, only the article 51 of Chinese Antimonopoly Law regulates that “If administrative power by government and organizations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues abuse administrative power, to eliminate or restrict competition, shall be ordered by superior authorities to correct themselves; people in direct charge and people directly involved shall be imposed administrative punishment. The antimonopoly execution authorities shall supply suggestion to related superior authorities to handle according to law.” Many administrative responsibilities such as “shall be ordered by superior authorities to correct themselves; people in direct cha rge and people directly involved shall be imposed administrative punishment” form different legal results of different subjects to implement monopoly behaviors, so peoplebegin to suspect the justice of laws, which virtually helps the administrative subjects to implement administrative monopoly, and the deterrent force will be reduced largely. At the same time, though the responsibility of Chinese Antimonopoly Law is too lighter and becomes a mere formality, and the law is not obeyed and strictly enforced, so the administrative monopoly remains incessant after repeated prohibition.2.3 The jurisdiction of antimonopoly law enforcement institution is limitedThe definition about the anti-administrative monopoly law enforcement agency in the fifty first article of Chinese Antimonopoly Law is still blurry, and on the one hand, the supervision procedures should be independently established to restrain laws by this law, and on the other hand, the law regulates that the administrative monopoly should be dominated by superior authorities, and the article that “If administrative power by government and organizations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues abuse administrative power, to eliminate or restrict competition will be handled by another regulation, shall be applied to another regulation” has left large space for the rights of relative departments and supervision institutions, which has eliminated the jurisdiction ofanti-administrative monopoly law enforcement agent to the administrative monopoly. At the same time, it is not reasonable to handle the behaviors of administrative monopoly by the superior authority of lawbreaker for the legal responsibilities. The superior authority is not a specific authority, because the authorities implementing administrative monopoly are different, and the law enforcement has be decomposed to various functional authorities, which will easily induce repeat law enforcements or blank law enforcement. Furthermore, the superior authority is not the authority to specially dominate administrative monopoly, or the special judicial authority, and it just is common law enforcement authority (Wang, 2007). Staffs in superior authority may not have strong antimonopoly consciousness, and both the cognition and treatment result all lack in authorities, and they also lack in the ability to teat the cases about administrative monopoly.2.4 The range of administrative monopoly regulation is too narrowThe article 33 of Chinese Antimonopoly Law limits the object of administrative monopoly in the domain of goods trade. “Administrative power by government and organizations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues shall not abuse administrative power to carry out following conducts, to hinder the free flow of the commodities between regions”. In fact, the character of the transfer of modern economic industry structure is that the proportion of the service industry is enhanced increasingly, and if the object of the anti-administrative monopoly is only limited in the domain of goods trade, the domain which is bigger and occupies more proportion will be abandoned out of the supervision of Chinese Antimonopoly Law. Though the article 34 forbids and excludes that exterior managers participate in local bid invitation and bidding activities, and the article 35 forbids and excludes that exterior managers invest or establish branches including the domainof service trade in local region, but there are many items in the service industry out of these two ranges, and the legal regulation about administrative monopoly behaviors in the domain of service industry is still blank in Chinese Antimonopoly Law.2.5 Regulation measures for abstract administrative monopoly are deficientThough Chinese Antimonopoly Law has prohibitive regulations about the behaviors of abstract administrative monopoly, but it regulates nothing about legal responsibility and relief ways. If the illegal behavior of abstract administration can not be redressed in time in practice, it will always induce larger harm (Huang, 2001). Many administrative monopoly behaviors in practice are implemented by the mode of abstract administrative monopoly behavior, and even certain concrete administrative monopoly behavior is always done according to administrative rules, but these rules must be examined and approved, recorded or agreed by superior people’s governments or charge authorities, and when they are dissented, the judgment right is always in original authorities which will be hard to deny the rules and byelaws what they constituted. In addition, most countries adopt the judicial review system to treat the abstract administrative behavior by the mode of inefficacy or nonexistence, but this system in Chinese Antimonopoly Law is deficient, so the illegal behaviors of administrative subject is hard to be redressed.3. Perfection of administrative monopoly regulation in Chinese Antimonopoly LawAbove aspects about the legal regulation for the administrative monopoly in Chinese Antimonopoly Law all need to be perfected and simple opinions are offered as follows.3.1 Using foreign mature experiences as references and increasing the operation feature of Chinese Antimonopoly LawLaw enforcement should be executed according to laws, and that means the clear description of legal concepts is the premise to exactly enforce laws, and the specific description of legal rules is the base to enforce laws strictly, but the problems about administrative monopoly in Chinese Antimonopoly are very complex, and some legal concepts have not been defined, and detailed legal standards and concrete legal responsibility should be further confirmed. Therefore, the content of the chapter 5 in Chinese Antimonopoly Law can be regarded as the principled legal rules to regulate administrative monopoly, and the explanation of general principles is a complex and hard task, just as when US modified the Antimonopoly Law, it added the word of “efficiency judgment”, and the American Competition Bureau used 13000 words to explain it. It is necessary to explain the criterion of general rules, and only to constitute suited rules as soon as possibly, and explain the principled articles in detail, the operation character of Chinese Antimonopoly Law can be added, and the uniform law enforcement standards can be established to effectively regulate the administrative monopoly behaviors by law.3.2 Establishing various administrative monopoly legal responsibility systemsThe past laws in China only regulated administrative monopoly by administrative responsibility, but ignored the function of civil responsibility and criminal responsibility. To more effectively regulate administrative monopoly, the particularity of administrative monopoly should be considered fully, and constitute comprehensive legal responsibilities including administrative responsibility, civil responsibility and criminal responsibility. When maintaining special competitors’ benefits, the behavior of administrative monopoly harms other competitors’ competition right at the same time, and it belongs to a kind of tort, and it should assume corresponding civil responsibility, and though the administrative responsibility includes the system of administrative compensation, but the range of administrative compensation is limited. And to better protect relative parties’ legal rights, Chinese Antimonopoly Law should specially regulate that victims of administrative monopoly have rights to institute civil actions, and obtain corresponding civil damages. At the same time, the behavior of administrative monopoly has large social harm, and it should be adjusted by the criminal law when it seriously harms the society, and furthermore, the social harm extent achieved by administrative monopoly is far bigger than some economic crimes and occupational crimes regulated in current criminal laws, so the measure of criminal punishment is necessary to be adopted.3.3 Confirming independent antimonopoly law enforcement institutions and perfect the law enforcement systemThe legal construction in China is to solve practical problems in the final analysis, and the setup of antimonopoly law enforcement institution is not exceptional. The antimonopoly law enforcement institution should be highly independent. To keep the independent is the life line of antimonopoly law enforcement institution, and the meaning of antimonopoly law, that is also the successful experience to effectively execute antimonopoly laws in most countries. And antimonopoly law enforcement institution must have high specialty character, and the antimonopoly law enforcement is not simple market management, and it comes down to the contents about economy, law and management, so it is a complex project. Professional organization system is the important factor to guarantee the effective operation of law enforcement institution.Independent and professional antimonopoly institution should be endowed by extensive administrative power, quasi-legislative power and quasi-judicial power, and that is the need to regulate administrative monopoly in China and the requirement to treat the development of international antimonopoly.3.4 Combining the generalization mode with the listing mode to specially limit the range of administrative monopolyBecause Chinese Antimonopoly Law defines the range of administrative monopoly by the listing mode, and it is mainly limited in the domain of goods trade, which induces that the regulation range of administrative monopoly in China is too narrow and lacks incorresponding flexibility. Using foreign relative experiences as references, China should adopt the mode combining the generalization mode with the listing mode to define the range of administrative monopoly.On the one hand, the main representative form of administrative monopoly should be listed specially, and the concrete regulations to regulate administrative monopoly behaviors in the domain of servicing industry should be added. And according to these rules, the antimonopoly law enforcement institutions should quickly judge representative administrative monopoly behaviors, and predict its legal result and increase the efficiency. On the other hand, according to relative authority data, the range of the industry about the national economy and the people’s livelihood should be specially defined, and the monopoly of these indu stries should be protected by laws, and the protective range and degree should also be defined, and for the behavior to illegally expand the monopoly range, corresponding punishment measures should be regulated.Through above analysis, the legal regulation of administrative monopoly behaviors in China just starts, and the relative rules about the administrative monopoly behaviors in Chinese Antimonopoly Law needs to be further perfected and crystallized, and the legal responsibilities about the administrative monopoly behaviors and the jurisdiction of law enforcement institution need to be further confirmed, and the regulation range of administration monopoly needs to be further expanded, and corresponding juridical relief approaches need to be gradually established. At the same time , the system reforms in the economic and political domain need to be further deepened, and the continual perfection of system reform can essentially reduce and stop the happening of administrative monopoly behaviors, and both the system reform and the legal regulation need to be strengthened, which is the essential way to solve the problem of administrative monopoly.从中国反垄断立法看行政垄断的法律规制Ling Wang山东科技大学法学院摘要：行政垄断打破了公正原则，并且具有较大的社会危害性。
中国反垄断法的执行机关
The Enforcement Agencies of China’s Antimonopoly LawDr. Zhaofeng Zhou1More than one and half years have passed since China’s first comprehensive competition law, the Antimonopoly Law (AML), took effect.2Awareness of antitrust issues at home and abroad is spreading among Chinese firms and Chinese consumers. This article aims to explain the enforcement agencies of AML.Casting the Enforcement AgenciesThe AML only provides:The authorities responsible for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law specified by the State Council （hereinafter referred to, in general, as the authority for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law under the State Council）shall be in charge of such enforcement in accordance with the provisions of this Law.The authority for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law under the State Council may, in light of the need of work, empower the appropriate departments of the people's governments of provinces, autonomous regions or municipalities directly under the Central Government to take charge of relevant enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law in accordance with the provisions of this Law.3There is no explicit mention of what the enforcement agencies are under the AML. In fact, determining how to allocate enforcement authority was among the most contentious issues in the drafting of the AML.4As August 1 2008 approached, a series of organizational notices unveiled the new enforcement scheme. The State Council opted for a division of authority roughly tracking the existing responsibilities of Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), and the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC). Ironically, the May 2002 draft of the AML anticipated this eventual compromise; it assigned merger review and administrative monopoly issues to MOFCOM’s predecessor, the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC), National Development and Planning Commission (now the NDRC), and 1Dr. Zhaofeng Zhou, PhD(Glas), is an associate at the Department of Antimonopoly Law of Grandfield Law Offices. He can be reached through zhaofengzhou@.2See Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Fanlongduan Fa [Antimonopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China], (promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Aug. 30, 2007 and effective on Aug. 1, 2008), available at/zgrdw/common/zw.jsp?label=WXZLK&id=371229pdmc=11006. An unofficial English translation available at/new/23223_23228/2009_6_18_ji42466494181690026854.shtml. References quotations herein are based on this English translation.3See Art 10 of AML.4For the history of formulating AML, see Dr. Zhaofeng Zhou, The Impact of the World Trade Organization on the Formulation of the Antimonopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China, pp. 79-113, available at/116/01/2008zhaofengzhouphd.pdf.assigned the remaining rules against monopoly agreements and abuse of dominance to the SAIC.MOFCOMMOFCOM was created in 2003 through the consolidation of the State Economics and Trade Commission and MOFTEC. MOFCOM’s portfolio includes broad authority over international trade and investment issues and over many domestic commercial matters. MOFCOM led the review of transactions on “antimonopoly”grounds pursuant to the Regulations on the Mergers & Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors (M&A Rules).5These measures, first released in 2003 and overhauled in 2006, sketch out procedures for reviewing certain “mergers/acquisitions of domestic enterprises by foreign investors”and for “offshore mergers and acquisitions.”6Despite widespread confusion as to the requirements (and skepticism as to their relevance), MOFCOM gradually ramped up its merger review efforts. In 2004, MOFCOM organized a new Antimonopoly Office to review mergers and coordinate MOFCOM’s central involvement in the drafting of the AML. By the end of 2007, MOFCOM had reviewed over 400 notified transactions. MOFCOM has also been the primary interlocutor in government-to-government exchanges on competition policy, and most of the Chinese officials who have closely studied foreign competition practices are MOFCOM personnel.Under the State Council Notice on Government Structure Reform, MOFCOM is responsible for reviewing mergers under the AML, building on its experience reviewing mergers involving foreign parties reported under the M&A Rules.7It is also responsible for coordinating bilateral and multilateral cooperation on competition policy issues.8Somewhat paradoxically, MOFCOM is also responsible for guiding Chinese parties participating in antitrust proceedings overseas.9While support for exporters ensnared in foreign antidumping proceedings might make sense, support for firms facing antitrust charges may compromise MOFCOM’s ability to cooperate with its foreign peers in cartel investigations. MOFCOM has formed a new Antimonopoly Bureau, essentially elevating the stature of the former Antimonopoly Office within the 5See Guanyu Waiguo Touzizhe Binggou Jingnei Qiye de Guiding [Regulations on Mergers and Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors], (promulgated by Ministry of Commerce, State Owned Asset Supervision and Administration Commission, State Administration of Taxation, State Administration of Industry and Commerce, China Securities Regulatory Commission and State Administration of Foreign Exchange on Aug. 8, 2006 and effective on Sept. 8, 2006), available at/misc/2006-08/29/content_397421.htm. (Translation available by subscription at .)6See Waigou Touzizhe Binggou Jingnei Qiye Zanxing Guiding [Provisional Regulations Regarding Mergers and Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors], (promulgated by Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation, State Administration of Taxation, State Administration of Industry and Commerce, and State Administration of Foreign Exchange on Mar. 13, 2003 and effective on Apr. 12, 2003), available at/aarticle/date/i/s/200509/20050900366385.html. (Translation available by subscription at .)7See Shangwubu Zhuyao Zhizhe Neishe Jigou he Renyuan Bianzhi Guiding [Regulation on Major Duties of the Internal Structure and Staffing Requirements of Ministry of Commerce], issued on Aug. 23, 2008, art. 3 (11), available at /policy/zhuanti/xbwzj/2008-08/24/content_16316678.htm.8See id.9See id.ministry.10Article 32 of the Foreign Trade Law provides:No one may, in the business activities of foreign trade, implement any act of monopolization against the relevant anti-monopolization laws or administrative regulations.Anyone who carries out any monopolizing act in its foreign trade business activities shall be dealt with in accordance with the relevant anti-monopolization laws and administrative regulations. If any of the illegal acts as described in the preceding paragraph endangers the foreign trade order at the same time, the foreign trade department of the State Council may take necessary measures to eliminate the harm.11Under this provision, thus, MOFOCOM is also responsible for antimonopoly conducts in the area of foreign trade.The Antimonopoly Bureau of MOFCOM has been designated to serve as the secretariat for the Antimonopoly Commission. This may enable MOFCOM to infuse lessons from the last several years of engagement with foreign authorities, scholars, and practitioners into the enforcement decisions of the SAIC and NDRC.SAICThe SAIC is a ministry-level organization charged with administering various commercial regulations. It operates through provincial and local industry and Commerce Administrations (AICs). Although the SAIC also received merger notifications pursuant to the M&A Rules, it assumed a more passive “archival” role. The SAIC’s credentials as an antitrust enforcement agency rest more on its experience enforcing the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.12Most of this enforcement activity involves rules against commercial bribery and deceptive trade practices; the “antitrust”provisions are largely toothless. The SAIC has, however, emphasized its record of enforcing the Anti-Unfair Competition Law’s rules against state-sanctioned monopolies and government agencies that compel consumers to trade with designated firms and against government entities that exclude products from other regions.13In a December 13, 2007 speech, SAIC Vice-Minister Zhong Youping trumpeted the SAIC’s investigation of 6,479 compulsory trading cases involving the power, mail, telecommunications, insurance, banking, gas, tobacco, and salt industries and of 490 10See id.11See Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Duiwai Maoyifa [Foreign Trade Law of the People’s Republic of China], (amended by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on April 6, 2004 and effective on July 1, 2004), available at /flfg/2005-06/27/content_9851.htm. An unofficial English translation available at /viewkl.asp?id=441&nv=7 References quotations herein are based on this English translation.12See Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Fanbuzhengdan Jingzheng Fa [Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China], (promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Sept. 2, 1993 and effective on Dec. 1, 1993), available at/aarticle/date/i/s/200503/20050300027909.html. (Translation available by subscription at .)13See id., arts. 6-7.cases involving local protectionism.14Despite this experience as an investigative and enforcement agency, the SAIC’s current role does not encompass significant economic analysis or economic policymaking.Under the State Council Notice on Government Structure Reform, the SAIC is now responsible for enforcing the rules against monopoly agreements and abuse of dominance- except for price-related conduct. The SAIC’s new Antimonopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition Enforcement Bureau is expected to expand the SAIC’s current program for enforcing the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to include AML enforcement.15NDRCThe NDRC is a powerful macro-economic planning body with broad authority over nationwide industrial policy and economic policy. The NDRC also administers the Price Law, which enables the NDRC to issue guidance or controls for prices of certain products while prices for other products are left to the market.16The Price Law also prohibits certain “abnormal pricing behaviors,”including price fixing, predatory pricing, and price discrimination. In 2003, the NDRC issued the Interim Price Monopoly Rules, which read like a rough draft of the AML provisions on monopolistic agreements and abuse of dominance.17These measures were largely unenforced. However, as the Chinese government became increasingly concerned with inflation in mid-2007, the NDRC responded vigorously to allegations of collusion in regional food markets. In January 2008, the State Council increased the penalties for collusion to fix or increase prices.18Under the State Council Notice on Government Structure Reform, the NDRC is now responsible for addressing price-related violations of the AML rules against monopoly agreements and abuse of dominance.19These duties fall to the Price Supervision14See Zhong Youping zai Fanlongduan Zhifa Guoji Yantaohui shang Zhichu Gongshang Bumen Yifa Kaizhan Jingzheng Zhifa Qude Jiji Chengxiao [Statement by Zhong Youping at the International Symposium on Antitrust Law Enforcement that AIC’s Enforcement of Competition Rules Has Achieved Positive Results] (Dec. 15, 2007), available at /zwxxq/zwdt/gsyw/zjyw/t20071218_28643.htm.15See Guowuyuan Bangongting Guanyu Yinfa Guojia Gongshang Xingzheng Guanli Zhongju Zhuzhao Zhizhe Neishe Jigou he Renyuan Bianzhi Guiding de Tongzhi [Office of the State Council Issued the Notice on the Major Duties of the Internal Structure and Staffing Requirements of State Administration for Industry and Commerce], issued on July 11, 2008, available at /zwxxq/zwdt/zyfb/t20080725_43236.htm.16See Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Jiagefa [Price Law of the People’s Republic of China], (amended by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Dec. 29, 1997 and effective on May. 1, 1998), available at /new/63/74/1997/12/ad064480111922179914152.htm. An unofficial English translation available at /news/23223/23228/23009.htm. References quotations herein are based on this English translation17See Zhizhi Jiage Longduan Xingwei Zanxing Guiding [Interim Provisions on Preventing Acts of Price Monopoly], Order [2003] No. 3 (adopted by the State Planning and Development Commission on June 18, 2003 and effective on Nov. 1, 2003), available at /zcfbl/zcfbl2003/t20050613_6683.htm. (Translation available by subscription at ). The State Planning and Development Commission was restructured and renamed the NDRC during the same 2003 government reorganization which created MOFCOM.18See Guowuyuan Guany Xiugai Jiage Weifa Xingwei Xingzheng Chufa Guiding de Jueding [Decision of the State Council on Revision of Provisions on Administrative Punishment of Price-Related Violations] (Jan. 13, 2008).19See Guojia Fazhan he Gaige Weiyuanhui Zhuyao Zhizhe Neishe Jigou he Renyuan Bianzhi GuidingDepartment, which currently administers the Price Law.Potential Problems under Current Enforcement SystemThis division of authority heightens concerns about inconsistent enforcement and policy coordination. Distinguishing “price-related”violations and “non-price”violations may prove unworkable. Where a single course of anticompetitive conduct combines pricing practices with other non-price measures, it is unclear whether and how the SAIC and NDRC will coordinate their investigations. Conceptually, it may often be difficult to distinguish explicit “price-related”violations and “non-price”violations with equivalent economic effects. Overlaps between the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the Price Law, and other measures compound these risks. This problem has been reflected in the Rice Noodle Price Cartel case.20In this case, the NDRC applied both the Price Law and the AML. However, these two laws are not formulated for the same purposes. The Price Law aims to standardize the price acts, give play to the role of price in the rational allocation of resources, and stabilize the overall price level of the market. The AML aims to prevent and restrain monopolistic conducts, protect fair market competition, enhance economic efficiency. It is remained to be seen how such issues can be addressed without amending the existing laws.More importantly, MOFCOM, the SAIC, and the NDRC may embrace divergent views of the proper goals of antitrust and its role in the Chinese government’s overall agenda. As illustrated by recent differences between the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division concerning unilateral conduct,21some dissonance is perhaps inevitable in any competition regime which has multiple enforcement agencies. The Chinese enforcement authorities, however, may clash on even more fundamental goals and tools of antitrust. Different approaches to defining markets, gauging market power, and weighing the interests of consumers and competitors when applying the many “public interest” exceptions of the AML may lead to inconsistent if not contradictory results.ConclusionSince the enforcement of the AML is still at the early stage and many guidelines and regulations have not been issued yet, there have not been any cases which show clearly differences among these three enforcement agencies. Nevertheless, the current multiple enforcement system is not an ideal choice for effectively implementing the AML. It is a compromised solution. As a matter of practices, undertakings have to understand the current enforcement system. It is no doubt that the multiple [Regulation on Major Duties of the Internal Structure and Staffing Requirements of National Development and Reform Commission], issued on Aug. 22, 2008, art. 3 (23), available at/gzdt/t20080821_231802.htm.20See Nanning Liuzhou Bufen Mifen Shengchan Changjia Chuantong Zhangjia Soudao Yanli Chachu [Some Rice Noodle Producers in Nanning and Liuzhou Were Punished due to Collusive Prices], available at/fjgld/t20100331_338262.htm21See Press Release, Federal Trade Comm’n, FTC Commissioners React to Department of Justice Report, Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (Sept. 8, 2008), available at /opa/2008/09/section2.shtm.enforcement system creates more confusions than a single enforcement system. Thus, the purpose of this article is to help undertakings to understand the enforcement system of the AML.。
反垄断法2007版
反垄断法2007版English Answer:The Competition Act, 2007 is a comprehensivelegislation that seeks to prevent anti-competitivepractices and promote a healthy competitive environment in India. The Act provides a framework for the regulation of anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position,and mergers and acquisitions.One of the key features of the Competition Act is its prohibition on anti-competitive agreements. This includes agreements between enterprises that fix prices, restrict output, or allocate markets. The Act also prohibits cartels, which are agreements between competitors to act in a coordinated manner to restrict competition.Another important provision of the Competition Act isits prohibition on abuse of dominant position. A dominant enterprise is one that has a significant market share andthe ability to control prices or exclude competitors. The Act prohibits such enterprises from engaging in practices that are likely to harm competition, such as predatory pricing or exclusive dealing.The Competition Act also provides a framework for the regulation of mergers and acquisitions. The Act requires certain mergers and acquisitions to be notified to the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The CCI reviews these transactions to ensure that they do not substantially lessen competition in the relevant market.The Competition Act has been instrumental in promoting a more competitive environment in India. The Act has led to the break-up of several cartels and the imposition of penalties on enterprises that have engaged in anti-competitive practices. The Act has also helped to create a more level playing field for small and medium-sized enterprises.中文回答：2007年反垄断法是一项综合性立法，旨在防止反竞争行为、促进印度的健康竞争环境。
反垄断法【英文版】
Anti-monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China（Adopted at the 29th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress on August 30, 2007）ContentsChapter I General ProvisionsChapter II Monopoly AgreementsChapter III Abuse of Dominant Market PositionChapter IV Concentration of UndertakingsChapter V Abuse of Administrative Power to Eliminate or Restrict CompetitionChapter VI Investigation into Suspected Monopolistic ConductsChapter VII Legal LiabilitiesChapter VIII Supplementary Provisions--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chapter I General ProvisionsArticle 1 This Law is enacted for the purpose of preventing and res training monopolistic conducts, protecting fair market competition, enhancing economic efficiency, safeguarding the interests of consumers and the interests of the society as a whole, and promoting the healthy development of socialist market economy.Article 2 This Law is applicable to monopolistic conducts in economic activities within the territory of the People's Republic of China； and it is applicable to monopolistic conducts outside the territory of the People's Republic of China, which serve to e liminate or restrict competition on the domestic market of China.Article 3 For the purposes of this Law, monopolistic conducts include：（1） monopoly agreements reached between undertakings ；（2） abuse of dominant market position by undertakings； and（3） concentration of undertakings that lead, or may lead to elimination or restriction of competition.Article 4 The State shall formulate and implement competition rules which are compatible with the socialist market economy, in order to improve macro-economic regulation and build up a sound market network which operates in an integrated, open, competi tive and orderly manner.Article 5 Undertakings may, through fair competition and voluntary association, get themselves concentrated according to law, to expand the scale of their business operations and enhance their competitiveness on the market.Article 6 Undertakings holding a dominant position on the market may not abuse such position to eliminate or restrict competition.Article 7 With respect to the industries which are under the control of by the State-owned economic sector and have a bearing on the lifeline of the national economy or national security and the industries which exercise monopoly over the production and sale of certain commodities according to law, the State shall protect the lawful business operations of undertakings in these industries, and shall, in accordance with law, supervise and regulate their business operations and the prices of the commodities and services provided by them, in order to protect the consumers' interests and facilitate technological advance.The undertakings mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall do business according to law, be honest, faithful and strictly self-disciplined, and subject themselves to public supervision, and they shall not harm the consumers' interests by taking advantage of their position of control or their monopolistic production and sale of certain commodities.Article 8 Administrative departments or organizations authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of administering public affairs may not abuse their administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition.Article 9 The State Council shall establish an anti-monopoly commission to be in charge of organizing, coordinating and guiding anti-monopoly work and to perform the following duties：（1） studying and drafting policies on competition；（2）organizing investigation and assessment of competition on the market as a whole and publishing assessment reports；（3） formulating and releasing anti-monopoly guidelines；（4） coordinating administrative enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law； and（5） other duties as prescribed by the State Council.The composition of and procedural rules for the anti-monopoly commission shall be specified by the State Council.Article 10 The authorities responsible for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law specified by the State Council （hereinafter referred to, in general, as the authority for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law under the State Council） shall be in charge of such enforcement in accordance with the provisions of this Law.The authority for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law under the State Council may, in light of the need of work, empower the appropriate departments of the people's governments of provinces, autonomous regions or municipalities directly under the Central Government to take charge of relevant enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law in accordance with the provisions of this Law.Article 11 Trade associations shall tighten their self-discipline, give guidance to the undertakings in their respective trades in lawful competition, and maintain the market order in competition.Article 12 For the purposes of this Law, undertakings include natural persons, legal persons, and other organizations that engage in manufacturing, or selling commodities or providing services.For the purposes of this Law, a relevant market consists of the range of the commodities for which, and the regions where, undertakings compete each other during a given period of time for specific commodities or services （hereinafter referred to, in general, as “commodities”）。
反垄断法
一、我国是社会主义国家，直 接管理和组织经济是国家的重要职 能，国家垄断是必然和客观的，不 需要制定反垄断法进行规制； 二、我国现实生活中的垄断问 题，如卡特尔、跨国公司实施的限 制竞争行为、公用企业的垄断及行 政垄断等问题非常突出，急需解决， 因此，我国必须加紧制定反垄断法。
结构主义的反垄断立法不仅规范占市 场支配地位企业的市场行为，而且更担负 着对阻碍了市场竞争的市场结构予以调整 的任务； 行为主义的反垄断立法则以控制限制 竞争和形成垄断的市场行为为重点。
从经济方面来讲：行政权力不 恰当地介入市场，破坏了自由、公 平的竞争秩序，扭曲了价值规律， 妨碍了市场机制正常作用的发挥； 它造成了条块分割、壁垒森严，阻 碍了全国统一大市场的形成；它损 害了普通经营者的经营自由和广大 消费者的权益。
从政治和社会方面来讲：它助 长了社会不公平和腐败、违法现象。
自然垄断是指由于存在着 资源稀缺和规模经济效益、范 围经济效益等技术理由或特别 的经济理由而成立的垄断或寡 头垄断。在反垄断法中，自然 垄断通常属于适用除外内容。
反垄断法的核心在于反对过分 集中的经济力量，从而达到维护有 效竞争的政策目标。 二战后，许多国家认为，如果 一垄断行为有利于提升国家竞争力 或者能带来潜在的效率利益或者应 优先考虑其他社会利益时，那么， 即使这一垄断行为损害了有效竞争， 也应得到支持。
相关市场由产品市场和地域市场 构成。 随着世界经济一体化的进展及国 家、国内市场的日益并规，低于市场 逐步开放，呈超越国界的趋势。 反垄断法在界定相关市场时从封 闭走向开放，使得企业的国内垄断行 为变得更为容易。
4、技术创新和产品创新
小额市 场—指那些 销售总额很 小的市场。
破产公司 原则—与其破 产，不如合并 保持竞争状态。
论垄断行为的刑事责任
２．３．１订立垄断协议…………………………………………．９ ２．３．２滥用市场支配地位……………………………………．．１０ ２．３．３生产经营者过于集中……………………………………１１ ２．４垄断行为的法律责任…………………………………１３ ２．４．１垄断行为的民事责任……………………………………１３ ２．４．２垄断行为的行政责任……………………………………１３ ２．４．３垄断行为的刑事责任……………………………………１４ ２．５垄断行为的社会危害…………………………………１５ ２．５．１损害利益……………………………………………．１５ ２．５．２阻碍创新……………………………………………．１６ ２．５．３破坏竞争秩序…………………………………………１６ ２．５．４滋生腐败……………………………………………．１７ ２．６规制垄断行为的作用…………………………………１７ ２．６．１保护竞争……………………………………………．１８ ２．６．２提高效率……………………………………………．１８ ２．６．３维护利益……………………………………………．１９
Ｉｌ
Ａｂｓｔｒａｃｔ
Ｃｏｍｐｅｔｉｔｉｏｎ ｉｓ ｉｎｄｅｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｅｓｓｅｎｃｅ ｏｆ ｍａｒｋｅｔ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｙ，ｗｈｏｓｅ ａｄｖａｎｔａｇｅ ｌｉｅｓ ｉｎ ｍｏｂｉｌｉｚｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｉｎｉｔｉａｔｉｖｅ ｏｆ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ，ｏｐｔｅｒｍｚｉｎｇ ｒｅｓｏｕｒｃｅ ｄｉｓｔｒｉｂｕｔｉｏｎ．ｄｒｉｖｅｎ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ
摘要
摘要
竞争是市场经济发展的动力。在市场经济运行中，市场主体之间的合理、 有序、公平的竞争，可以实现经济要素配置的优化，可以实现市场主体合法利 益的最大化，可以促进市场经济的良性发展。但与此同时也存在着垄断，并且 随着市场经济发展水平的提升，垄断及其危害的程度也随之加剧。垄断是在市 场竞争的过程中产生的，是市场经济优胜劣汰的产物。就完全的市场经济而言， 竞争越充分，垄断的程度就越高。但是，在市场经济不发达的国家或者地区， 也出现严重的垄断，而这种垄断不是纯粹的经济现象或者状态，而是市场之外 的力量所导致的。比如，我国的电信、石化、铁路等领域，存在高度的垄断， 而这种垄断是行政等力量所致，其危害性同由竞争所导致的垄断在社会危害程 度上相差无几。不管是哪一种垄断，不管是有哪一种力量所主导的垄断，从短 期来看，势必危害市场主体的利益、消费者的利益；从长远看也势必危及市场 经济的良性运行和安全运行。因此，在市场经济运行的过程中，必须有效的排 除非法垄断。
国贸英语专用术语 垄断一词解释
专利品)
monopoly
• Under the perfect competition. • To gain more profits. • No substitute goods.
monopoly
• Monopoly means no competition, which will no longer cause the product development and innovation. • Price fixing will be pulled up the cost of the whole community. • Monopoly make the officials and businessmen get together, which leads to serious corruption(腐败).
monopoly
[英] [mə’nɔpəli] [美] [mə’nɑpəli] 垄断
Made by 金凌波，苏娜，傅嫦媛，王雯雯
1 2 3
What is monopoly? What cause monopoly? What’s the effects?
【推荐】中国发布反垄断新规值得关注-范文模板 (1页)
【推荐】中国发布反垄断新规值得关注-范文模板本文部分内容来自网络整理，本司不为其真实性负责，如有异议或侵权请及时联系，本司将立即删除！== 本文为word格式，下载后可方便编辑和修改！ ==中国发布反垄断新规值得关注In the annals of anti - monopoly case law , Chineserice noodle and tableware cartels do not rank upthere with the Standard Oil trust , the petroleumcartel that was famously prosecuted in 1911 underthe US Sherman Antitrust Act .在反垄断判例法记录中，中国的米粉和餐具消毒卡特尔不可与标准石油( Standard Oil )托拉斯同日而语。
1911年，美国法院根据《谢尔曼反托拉斯法》( Sherman Antitrust Act )裁定标准石油托拉斯为非法石油垄断组织，这是一个著名的判例。
& nbsp ;& nbsp ;But in time these two much lesser known cartels , targeted by Beijing regulators shortly afterthe implementation of China & rsquo ; s 201X Anti - Monopoly Law , may become famous in their ownright . They were among the first cases in an enforcement campaign that has since ensnaredthe likes of Mercedes - Benz and Qualcomm . It could also soon have implications formultinationals & rsquo ; ability to safeguard intellectual property in the world & rsquo ; s most coveted market .然而，中国这两个鲜为人知的卡特尔或许也会因为其自身的原因扬名世界& mdash ;& mdash ;201X年，在中国《反垄断法》( Anti - Monopoly Law )实施一年多后，它们便被北京方面的监管部门盯上了。
语法
Monopoly
n. 垄断； 专卖； 垄断者； 专利品
Anti-monopoly Regulation 垄断规制 anti- monopoly law 反垄断法
Anti-monopoly Act
反mmission 反垄断委员会 anti-monopoly legislation 限购令 anti-monopoly probe 反垄断调查
anti-monopoly
反垄断 ['ænti:mən'ɒpəlɪ] laws and regulations; designed to protect trade and commerce from unfair business practices
Anti
n.反对者 adj.反对的 prep.反对
Panasonic has had to wait almost a year while anti-monopoly authorities in China and the EU examined the bid.
松下公司已不得不因中国和欧盟反垄断当 局需审查这项交易而等待了将近一年
The report was widely seen as a lastditch attempt by the Bush administration to make it harder for its successor to pursue a determined anti-monopoly policy. 这份报告被普遍看成是布什政府为了使下任 接班人更难以制定出一个坚定的反垄断政策 而作的最后的努力。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
烟台大学法学院法律硕士张川方中华人民共和国反垄断法Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China(Adopted at the 29th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People’s Congress on August 30, 2007)No.68 Order of the President of the PRCThe Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China, adopted at the 29th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on August 30, 2007, is hereby promulgated and shall go into effect as of August 1st, 2008.Hu Jintao, President of the PRCAugust 30, 2007 C- I General ProvisionsArticle 1This Law is enacted for the purpose of(为了) preventing and restraining monopolistic conducts(垄断行为), protecting fair market competition, enhancing economic efficiency(经济运行效率), safeguarding the interests of consumers and the society as a whole(社会公共利益), and promoting the healthy development of socialist market economy. 2012-10-10 16:07:22Article 2This Law is applicable to monopolistic conducts in economic activities within the territory of the People’s Republic of China; and it is applicable to monopolistic conducts outside the territory of the People’s Republic of China, which serve to eliminate or restrict(产生排除、限制影响)competition on the domestic market of China.Article 3For the purposes of this Law(本法规定的), monopolistic conducts include:(1) monopoly agreements(垄断协议)reached between undertakings(经营者);(2) abuse of dominant market position(市场支配地位) by undertakings; and(3) concentration of undertakings(经营者集中)that lead, or may lead to(具有…的效果)elimination or restriction of competition.Article 4The State shall formulate and implement competition rules(竞争规则)which are compatible with(相适应的) the socialist market economy, in order to perfect macro-economic regulation(完善宏观调控) and build up a sound(健全)market network(市场体系) which operates in an integrated, open, competitive and orderly manner.Article 5Undertakings may, through fair competition and voluntary association(自愿联合), get themselves concentrated according to law, to expand the scale of their business operations(经营规模)and enhance their competitiveness on the market.Article 6Undertakings holding a dominant position on the market may not abuse(不得滥用)such position to eliminate or restrict competition.Article 7(1) With respect to the industries which are under the control of the State-owned economic sector(国有经济成份) and have a bearing on(关系到)the lifeline of the national economy(国民经济命脉)or national security(国家安全) and the industries which exercise monopoly over the production and sale of certain commodities(实行专营专卖) according to law, the State shall protect the lawful business operations of undertakings in these industries, and shall, in accordance with law, supervise and regulate their business operations(经营活动) and the prices of the commodities and services provided by them, in order to protect the consumers’ interests and facilitate technological advance(促进技术进步).(2) The undertakings mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall do business according to law(依法经营), be honest, faithful(诚实守信)and strictly self-disciplined(严格自律的), and subject themselves to public supervision, and they shall not harm the consumers’ interests by taking advantage of their position of control or monopolistic production and sale of certain commodities(专营专卖).Article 8Administrative organs or organizations authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of(具有…职能) administering public affairs(公共事务) may not abuse their administrative powers(行政权力)to eliminate or restrict competition.Article 9(1) The State Council shall establish an anti-monopoly commission(反垄断委员会)to be in charge of(负责)organizing, coordinating and guiding anti-monopoly work and to perform the following duties:(a) studying and drafting(拟订)policies on competition;(b) organizing investigation and assessment of competition on the market as a whole(市场总体竞争状况) and publishing assessment reports(发布评估报告);(c) formulating and releasing anti-monopoly guidelines(发布反垄断指南);(d) coordinating administrative enforcement(行政执法工作)of the Anti-Monopoly Law; and(e) other duties as prescribed by the State Council.(2) The composition of and procedural rules(工作规则)for the anti-monopoly commission shall be specified by the State Council.Article 10(1) The authority responsible for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law(反垄断执法)specified by the State Council (hereinafter referred to, in general, as以下统称the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council) shall be in charge of such enforcement in accordance with the provisions of this Law.(2) The authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council may, in light of the need of work, empower(授权)the appropriate department(相应的机构)of the people’s governments of provinces, autonomous regions or municipalities directly under the Central Government to take charge of(负责) relevant enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law in accordance with the provisions of this Law.Article 11Trade associations(行业协会)shall tighten their self-discipline(加强行业自律), give guidance to the undertakings in their respective trades in lawful competition, and maintain the market order in competition(市场竞争秩序).Article 12(1) For the purposes of this Law, undertakings include natural persons, legal persons, and other organizations that engage in manufacturing or selling commodities(商品经营), or providing services.(2) For the purposes of this Law, a relevant market consists of the range of the commodities(商品范围) and the range of the regions(地域范围), in which undertakings compete with each other during a given period of time for specific commodities or services (hereinafter referred to, in general, as “commodities”).C-II Monopoly AgreementsArticle 13(1) Competing(具有竞争关系的)undertakings are prohibited from concluding the following monopoly agreements:(a) on fixing or changing(固定或变更)commodity prices;(b) on restricting the amount of commodities manufactured or marketed(销售的);(c) on splitting the sales market(销售市场) or the purchasing market(采购市场) for raw materials;(d) on restricting the purchase of new technologies or equipments, or restricting the development of(限制开发) new technologies or products;(e) on joint boycotting(联合抵制) of transactions; and(f) other monopoly agreements confirmed(认定的)by the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council.(2) For the purposes of this Law, monopoly agreements include agreements, decisions and other concerted conducts(协同行为) designed to eliminate or restrict competition.Article 14Undertakings are prohibited from concluding the following monopoly agreements with their trading counterparts(交易相对人):(1) on fixing the prices of commodities(物价)resold to a third party(向第三人转售);(2) on restricting the lowest prices of commodities resold to a third party; and(3) other monopoly agreements confirmed by the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law(反垄断执法) under the State Council.Article 15(1) The provisions of Article 13 and 14 of this Law shall not be applicable to the agreements between undertakings, which they can prove to be concluded for any of the following purposes(属于下列情形之一的):(a) to improve technologies, or to engage in research and development(研究开发) of new products; or(b) to improve product quality, reduce cost, and enhance efficiency, to unify specifications(统一规格) and standards of products, or to implement specialized division of production(专业化分工);(c) to increase the efficiency(经营效率)and competitiveness of small and medium-sized undertakings;(d) to serve public interests(实现公共利益)in energy conservation(节约能源), environmental protection and disaster relief(救灾救助);(e) to mitigate sharp decrease(严重下降) in sales volumes(销售量) or obvious overproduction caused by economic depression;(f) to safeguard the legitimate interests in foreign trade and economic cooperation with foreign counterparts(对外经济合作); or(g) other purposes as prescribed by laws or the State Council.(2) In the cases(情形) as specified in Subparagraphs (a) through (e) of the preceding paragraph, where the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of this Law are not applicable, the undertakings shall, in addition, prove that the agreements reached will not substantially restrict(严重限制)competition in the relevant market and that they can enable the consumers to share the benefits derived therefrom(由此产生的).Article 16Trade associations may not make arrangements(组织)for undertakings within their respective trades to engage in the monopolistic practices(垄断行为) prohibited by the provisions of this Chapter.C-III Abuse of Dominant Market PositionArticle 17(1) Undertakings holding dominant market positions are prohibited from doing the following by abusing their dominant market positions:(a) selling commodities at unfairly high prices(不公平的高价)or buying commodities at unfairly low prices;(b) selling commodities below cost(低于成本价) without justifiable reasons;(c) refusing to enter into transactions(进行交易) with their trading counterparts without justifiable reasons;(d) without justifiable reasons, allowing their trading counterparts(交易相对人)to make transactions exclusively with(只能与)themselves or with the undertakings designated by them;(e) without justifiable reasons, conducting tie-in sale of commodities(搭售商品) or adding other unreasonable trading conditions(交易条件) to transactions;(f) without justifiable reasons, applying differential prices and other transaction terms(等交易条件)among their trading counterparts who are on an equal footing(条件相同); or(g) other acts of abuse of dominant market positions confirmed by the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council.(2) For the purposes of this Law, dominant market position means a market position held by an undertaking that is capable of controlling the prices or quantities of commodities or other transaction terms in a relevant market(在相关市场内), or preventing or exerting an influence on(影响)the access of other undertakings to the market.Article 18The dominant market position of an undertaking shall be determined on the basis of the following factors:(1) its share on a relevant market and the competitiveness(竞争状况) on the market;(2) its ability to control the sales market(销售市场) or the purchasing market for raw and semi-finished materials;(3) its financial strength(财力)and technical conditions(技术条件);(4) the extent to which other business mangers(经营者) depend on it in transactions;(5) the difficulty(难易程度) that other undertakings find in entering the relevant market; and(6) other factors related to the determination of the dominant market position held by an undertaking.Article 19(1) The conclusion that an undertaking holds a dominant market position may be deduced from(从…推定出) any of the following circumstances:(a) the market share of an undertaking accounts for half of the total in a relevant market;(b) the joint market share(合计市场份额) of two undertakings accounts for two-thirds of the total in a relevant market; or(c) the joint market share of three undertakings accounts for three-fourths of the total in a relevant market.(2) Under the circumstance specified in Subparagraph (b) or (c) of the preceding paragraph, if the market share of one of the undertakings(有的经营者) is less than one-tenths of the total, the undertaking shall not be considered to have a dominant market position.(3) Where an undertaking that is deduced to hold a dominant market position has evidence to the contrary(有相反情况), he shall not be considered(被认定) to hold a dominant market position.C-IV Concentration of UndertakingsArticle 20Concentration of undertakings means the following:(1) merger of undertakings;(2) control over other undertakings gained by an undertaking through acquiring their shares(取得股权) or assets; and(3) control over other undertakings or being capable of exerting a decisive influence(施加决定性影响)on the same gained by an undertaking through signing contracts or other means. 2012-10-11 19:04:40Article 21When their intended concentration reaches the threshold level(申报标准) as set by the State Council, undertakings shall declare in advance(事先申报)to the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council; they shall not implement the concentration(实施集中)in the absence of such declaration.Article 22In any of the following circumstances, undertakings may dispense with(摒弃，省掉)declaration to the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council:(1) one of the undertakings involved in the concentration owns 50 percent or more of the voting shares or assets of each of the other undertakings; or(2) an undertaking not involved in the concentration owns 50 percent or more of the voting(有表决权的) shares or assets of each of the undertakings involved in the concentration.Article 23(1) To declare concentration(申报集中)to the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council, the undertakings shall submit the following documents and materials:(a) statement of declaration(申报书);(b) explanation of the impact to be exerted(即将施加的)by the concentration on competition in a relevant market;(c) concentration agreement;(d) the financial accounting report of each of the undertakings involved in the concentration in the previous fiscal year(上一会计年度), which is audited by a certified public accountant(注册会计师) firm; and(e) other documents and materials as specified by the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council.(2) The statement of declaration shall clearly state the titles(名称)of the undertakings involved in the concentration, their domiciles, business scopes(经营范围), the anticipated date(预定日期)for concentration and other matters specified by the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council.Article 24In case the documents or materials submitted by the undertakings are incomplete(不完备的), the undertakings concerned shall supplement(补交)the relevant documents or materials within the time limit prescribed by the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council. If they fail to do so at the expiration of the time limit, they shall be deemed to have made no declaration.Article 25(1) The authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council shall, within 30 days from the date it receives the documents or materials submitted by the undertakings which conform to the provisions of Article 23 of this Law, make a preliminary review(初步审查)of the concentration and make a decision whether to conduct a further review, and notify the undertakings of its decision in writing. Before the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council makes such a decision, the undertakings shall not implement the concentration.(2) Where the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council decides not to conduct a further review or fails to make such a decision at the expiration of the time limit(逾期), the undertakings may implement the concentration.Article 26(1) Where the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council decides to conduct a further review, it shall, within 90 days from the date of decision, complete the review, decide whether to prohibit the undertakings from concentrating(禁止经营者集中), and notify them of the decision in writing. Where a decision on prohibiting the undertakings from concentrating is made, the reasons for the decision shall be given. The undertakings shall not implement concentration during the period of review(审查期间).(2) Under any of the following circumstances, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council may extend the period for review as specified in thepreceding paragraph on condition that(经)it notifies the undertakings of the extension in writing, but the extension shall not exceed the maximum(最长不得超过) of 60 days:(a) the undertakings agree to(同意照办)the extension;(b) the documents or materials submitted by the undertakings are inaccurate and therefore need to be further verified; or(c) major changes have taken place(发生重大变化) after the undertakings made the declaration.(3) Where the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council fails to make a decision at the expiration of the time limit(逾期), the undertakings may implement concentration.Article 27The following factors shall be taken into consideration in the review of concentration of undertakings:(1) the market shares of the undertakings involved in concentration in a relevant market and their power of control(控制力) over the market;(2) the degree of concentration(集中度) in a relevant market;(3) the impact of their concentration on access to the market(市场进入) and technological advance;(4) the impact of their concentration on consumers and other relevant undertakings;(5) the impact of their concentration on the development of the national economy(国民经济); and(6) other factors which the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council deems necessary to be considered(认为应当考虑)in terms of its impact on market competition.Article 28If the concentration of undertakings leads, or may lead, to elimination or restriction of competition, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council shall make a decision to prohibit their concentration. However, if the undertakings concerned can prove that the advantages of such concentration to competition obviously outweigh(明显大于)the disadvantages, or that the concentration is in the public interests(符合社会公共利益), the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council may decide not to prohibit their concentration.Article 29Where the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council does not prohibit the concentration of undertakings, it may decide to impose additional restrictive conditions(附加限制性条件) for lessening the negative impact(不利影响)exerted by such concentration on competition.Article 30The authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council shall, in a timely manner, publish its decision on prohibition from the concentration of undertakings(禁止经营者集中)or its decision on imposing additional restrictive conditions on the implementation of such concentration.Article 31Where a foreign investor(外资)participates in the concentration of undertakings by merging and acquiring a domestic enterprise(境内企业)or by any other means, which involves national security, the matter shall be subject to review on national security(国家安全审查)as required by the relevant State regulations(国家有关规定), in addition to the review on the concentration of undertakings in accordance with the provisions of this Law.C-V Abuse of Administrative Power to Eliminate or Restrict CompetitionArticle 32Administrative organs and organizations authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of administering public affairs(管理公共事务) may not abuse their administrative powers to require, or require in disguised form(变相), units or individuals to deal in(经营), purchase or use only(限定)the commodities supplied by the undertakings designated by them.Article 33Administrative organs and organizations authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of administering public affairs may not abuse theiradministrative powers to impede(妨碍) the free flow(自由流通)of commodities between different regions by any of the following means:(1) setting discriminatory charge items(收费项目), implementing discriminatory charge rates(收费标准), or fixing discriminatory prices for non-local commodities(外地商品);(2) imposing technical specifications(技术要求) or test standards(检验标准)on non-local commodities, which are different from those on local commodities of similar types(同类), or taking discriminatory technical measures (技术措施)such as repeated test and repeated certification(重复认证), against non-local commodities to restrict the access of non-local commodities to the local market;(3) adopting a special practice of administrative licensing(专门的行政许可)for non-local commodities to restrict the access of non-local commodities to the local market;(4) erecting barriers(设置关卡)or adopting other means to prevent non-local commodities from coming in or local commodities from going out; or(5) other means designed(其它手段) to impede the free flow of commodities between regions. Article 34Administrative organs and organizations authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of administering public affairs may not abuse their administrative powers to exclude(排斥)non-local undertakings from participating, or restrict their participation, in local invitation and tendering(招标投标)by imposing discriminatory qualification requirements(资质要求) or assessment standards(评审标准), or by refusing to publish information according to law.Article 35Administrative organs and organizations authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of administering public affairs may not abuse their administrative powers to exclude or restrict non-local undertakings from making investment or establishing branch offices locally by treating them unequally(不平等待遇) as compared with the local undertakings, or by other means. Article 36Administrative organs and organizations authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of administering public affairs may not abuse their administrative powers to compel(强制) undertakings to engage in monopolistic conducts specified by this Law.Article 37Administrative organs may not abuse their administrative power to formulate regulations(制定规定)with content of eliminating or restricting competition.C-VI Investigation into Suspected Monopolistic ConductsArticle 38(1) The authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law shall investigate suspected monopolistic conducts(涉嫌垄断行为) according to law.(2) All units and individuals shall have the right to report to the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law against(对)suspected monopolistic conducts. The latter shall keep the information confidential.(3) If the report is made in writing(举报采用书面形式) and relevant facts and evidence are provided, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law shall conduct necessary investigation.Article 39(1) When conducting investigations into(调查)a suspected monopolistic conduct, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law may take the following measures:(a) conducting inspections of the business places(营业场所) or relevant premises of the undertakings under investigation;(b) making inquiries of(询问)the undertakings under investigation, the interested parties, or other units or individuals involved, and requesting them to provide relevant explanations(说明有关情况); (c) consulting and duplicating the relevant documents and materials of the undertakings under investigation, the interested parties and other relevantunits and individuals, such as bills, certificates(单证), agreements, account books(会计账簿), business correspondence and electronic data;(d) sealing up or distraining relevant evidence; and(e) inquiring about(查询) the bank accounts(银行账户) of the undertakings under investigation.(2) To take the measures specified in the preceding paragraph, a written report shall be submitted for approval to the principal leading person(主要负责人) of the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law.Article 40(1) When the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law to conducts investigations into suspected monopolistic conducts, there shall be at least two law-enforcement officers(执法人员)who shall produce their law enforcement certificates.(2) The law-enforcement officers shall make written records(笔录)when conducting inquiries and investigations, which shall be signed by the persons inquired or investigated.Article 41The authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law and its staff members are obligated to(有义务) keep confidential the commercial secrets they come to have access to(知悉的)in the course of law enforcement.Article 42The undertakings under investigation, the interested parties or other relevant units or individuals shall cooperate with the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law in performing their duties in accordance with law, and they shall not refuse or hinder(拒绝、阻碍)the investigation conducted by the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law.Article 43The undertakings under investigation and the interested parties(利害关系人)shall have the right to make statements. The authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law shall verify the facts, justifications(理由)and evidence presented by the said undertakings or interested parties.Article 44If, after investigation into and verification of a suspected monopolistic conduct, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law concludes that it constitutes a monopolistic conduct, the said authority shall make a decision on how to deal with it in accordance with law and may make the matter known to the public(向社会公布).Article 45(1) With respect to(对)the suspected monopolistic conduct which is under investigation by the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law, if the undertakings under investigation commit themselves to(承诺)adopt specific measures to eliminate the consequences of their conduct within a specified time limit(在一定期限之内)which is accepted by the said authority, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law may decide to suspend the investigation. The decision shall clearly state the details(具体内容)of the undertakings’ commitments.(2) Where the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law decides to suspend an investigation, it shall oversee the fulfillment of the commitments(履行承诺)made by the undertakings. Where the undertakings fulfill their commitments, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law may decide to terminate the investigation.(3) In any of the following circumstances, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law shall resume the investigation:(a) the undertakings concerned fail to fulfill their commitments;(b) material changes(重大变化) have taken place in respect of the facts on which the decision to suspend the investigation was based; or(c) the decision to suspend the investigation was based on incomplete or untrue(不真实的)information provided by the undertakings concerned.C-VII Legal LiabilitiesArticle 46(1) Where an undertaking, in violation of the provisions of this Law, concludes and implements a monopoly agreement, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law shall instruct it to discontinue the violation(责令停止违法行为), confiscate its unlawful gains, and in addition impose on it a fine of not less than one percent but not more than 10 percent of its sales amount(销售额)inthe previous year; if the monopoly agreement has not been implemented, it may be fined not more than RMB 500,000 yuan.(2) If an undertaking, on its own initiative(主动), reports to the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law about the monopoly agreement reached, and provides important evidence, the said authority may, at its discretion(酌情), mitigate or exempt the undertaking from punishment. (3) Where a trade association, in violation of the provisions of this Law, has arranged the undertakings in the trade to reach a monopoly agreement, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law may impose on it a fine of not more than 500,000 yuan; if the circumstances are serious, the administrative authority for the registration of public organizations(社会团体登记管理机关) may cancel the registration of the trade association in accordance with law.Article 47Where an undertaking, in violation of the provisions of this Law, abuses its dominant market position, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law shall instruct it to discontinue such violation, confiscate its unlawful gains, and in addition impose(并处)on it a fine of not less than one percent but not more than 10 percent of its sales amount in the previous year.Article 48Where the undertakings, in violation of the provisions of this Law, implement concentration, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law under the State Council shall instruct them to discontinue such concentration, within a specified time limit(限期) dispose of their shares or assets and transfer the business(转让营业), and adopt other necessary measures to return to the state prior to the concentration, and it may impose on them a fine of not more than 500,000 yuan.Article 49To determine the specific amount of fines(具体罚款数额) prescribed in Article 46, 47 and 48, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law shall consider such factors as the nature, extent and duration(持续的时间) of the violations.Article 50Where the monopolistic conduct of an undertaking has caused losses to another person, it shall bear the relevant civil liability(承担民事责任) according to law.Article 51(1) Where an administrative organ or an organization authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of administering public affairs abuses its administrative powers to eliminate or restrict competition, the organ at a higher level shall instruct it to rectify; the person directly in charge and other persons directly responsible shall be given disciplinary sanctions(处分)in accordance with law. The authority for enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law may submit a proposal(提出建议)to the relevant organ at a higher level for handling the matter according to law. (2) Where laws or regulations provide for otherwise(另有规定) in respect of administrative organs or organizations authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of administering public affairs abusing their administrative powers to eliminate or restrict competition, such provisions shall prevail.Article 52。