Civil Litigation, Access to Government-Held Information, and Coordination of Public and Private Enforcement in the Czech Republic

To correct the historical suppression of environmental information under communist rule, the Czech Republic has instituted several new laws granting citizen access to government-held information. This access should facilitate civil litigation by providing evidence in court for establishing causality in a country where practically everyone feels the effects of broad and severe environmental degradation. However, poor de facto citizen access and citizens'; traditional distrust of information severely limits litigation activity. Similarly, this paper examines the joint use of a privately-initiated ex post liability policy (i.e., tort litigation) and a state-initiated ex post liability policy (i.e., penalties). In particular, it explores a potential exchange of information between a government enforcer and plaintiffs, where the government enforcer provides information on the causality of harm to plaintiffs and plaintiffs provide information on the level of harm to the government enforcer. With more accurate information on both causality and damages, the joint use of state and private enforcement should lead to more efficient outcomes. This paper finds great potential for such improvement given the limited use of privately-provided information on harm and poor de facto access to government-provided information on environmental matters.     

Mitigating the Harshness of FCPA Enforcement Through a Qualifying Good‐Faith Compliance Defense

In recent years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have enforced the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) with increasing rigor. These zealous enforcement practices have been criticized for putting excessive pressure on companies to settle, often through nonprosecution or deferred prosecution agreements. The resulting proliferation of such settlements has created a dearth of case law interpreting the statute, resulting in legal ambiguity that reinforces pressures on companies to continue to settle rather than litigate, as uncertainty of the law adds to risk. This dynamic is exacerbated by the broad vicarious liability that firms face for the wrongdoing of individual actors. Given the need for government to enlist business as a partner in any effective battle against global corruption, the current highly adversarial relationship between enforcement agencies and firms is unreasonable and counterproductive. The law and its enforcement agencies should go further in providing incentives for businesses to develop and implement strong good‐faith FCPA compliance programs. They should establish standards for rigorous compliance programs that would provide qualifying companies with a defense against entity liability for the corrupt behavior of individuals. Creation of a qualifying good‐faith compliance program defense would help to prevent future FCPA violations, to recruit companies as partners in fighting corruption, to encourage ethics‐oriented corporate cultures, and to encourage upstanding firms to do business in regimes where rectitude is most needed.     

美国海外反贪腐法的寓意

对公司在海外业务中贿赂外国官员的行为进行规范,已经成为世界上很多国家的共识。这不但是从促进本国平等竞争的角度考虑,也能够间接敲打海外的权力腐败,促成清廉政治的养成,从而间接促成更为有利的投资环境。     

私人诉讼与证券执法

为打击证券市场上大量滋生的违法行为,在强化行政执法和刑事责任机制之外,还应当鼓励(而不是限制)民事诉讼机制,要求法院积极介入有关的诉讼纠纷.规划未来的公司、证券民事诉讼机制时,关键在于设计适宜的激励机制,以克服可能出现的原告动力不足的问题.此种激励最好以市场化的方式给出,即给原告律师创造适当的动力,并最终引入证券市场上专门的集团诉讼制度.集团诉讼机制经过制度设计,完全可以避免滥诉风险,真正需要注意的是避免限制过严.在目前证券集团诉讼制度尚未建立、诉讼和执法供给不足的情况下,可以尝试通过非盈利组织起诉的方式来起到鼓励证券诉讼的作用.非盈利组织需要跟行政力量相互合作,而不是完全独立于监管机关.     

私权在行政执法中的地位——以一则行政案件为分析工具

传统观念认为,公共利益优先于私人利益。但在当前更加强调尊重和保护私权的背景下,该种观念的正当性值得进一步检讨,不能认为私权相对于公权始终处于附属地位。在特定情况下,行政权力依法行使的内涵中应包含尊重私权,国家公权在行使过程中应注意对民事主体私权利的保护。     

欧盟反垄断私人诉讼制度的最新发展及启示

从欧盟竞争法的最新发展来看,私人诉讼在反垄断法中的地位正在逐步增强.欧盟委员会认为,行政执法始终是反垄断法实施的中坚力量,但私人诉讼是公共实施的有益补充.此外,欧盟积极借鉴美国的反托拉斯私人诉讼制度,旨在促进欧盟区经济的发展及欧盟消费者权利的保护.就我国而言,可以借鉴欧盟的经验,高度重视私人在反垄断法实施中的作用,完善法律制度,以推动反垄断私人诉讼在我国的发展.     

《反垄断法》私人实施之难题及其克服:一个前瞻性探讨

我国反垄断法的私人实施面临受害人数众多,原告资格难以确认,被告违法行为难以证明,损害赔偿数额难以计算等诸多难题,而竞争文化的缺失,法律工具主义的流行,可能使私人实施反垄断法变得更为困难。将反垄断诉讼之原告限定为直接受违法行为影响的人,以反垄断执法机关或法院作出了被告违法的有效决定或判决作为受理案件的条件,实行因果关系推定原则,统一规定损害赔偿数额的计算方法,重视竞争文化的培育和传播,可有效地克服这些困难。     

反垄断法实施的反垄断——论中国反垄断法的私人执行

中国反垄断法的实施一般由公共执行所垄断,但是,公共执行事实上却存在机构设置、公法责任等方面的局限性,因而反垄断法的实施不应由公共执行所垄断,还应引入私人执行,因为私人执行不仅是一种权利救济的途径,也是反垄断法的实施方式之一,有助于弥补和矫正公共执行的不足.在现行法律框架下,中国反垄断法私人执行可采取民事诉讼、仲裁、行政诉讼等三种方式.     

反垄断法私人执行的优越性及其实现——兼论中国反垄断法引入私人执行制度的必要性和立法建议

反垄断法私人执行的立法和实践始于美国,现在已经成为大多数国家的必然选择.反垄断法的私人执行具有自发性优势和比较优势两大优势,"赔偿功能"和"威慑功能"是私人执行"自发性优势"的主要体现,而"救济功能"和"指示功能"则是私人执行"比较优势"的主要表现.为了充分实现反垄断法私人执行的优越性,在制度设计上应遵循"法律上可能,经济上有利"的原则.为了促进我国反垄断法的有效实施,应引入私人执行制度,并在反垄断立法中对私人执行制度作出详细的规定.     

德国竞争法的私人执行——历史局限和最新发展

从理论上说,德国比较重视竞争法的私人执行,但由于立法的不确定性和司法的限制性解释,德国竞争法的私人执行在《反限制竞争法》第7次修订前,其实际效果并不理想;私人执行既没有影响力,也没有决定力。第7次修订后,德国竞争法的私人执行制度在多个方面发生了积极的变化,以促进和强化竞争法的私人执行;但尽管如此,修订后的竞争法私人执行规定仍存在某些方面的不足,需要将来进一步发展。     

反垄断私人诉讼困境与反垄断执法的管制化发展

中国反垄断法私人诉讼的发展与预期落差巨大。原因在于,反垄断法私人诉讼强调法院的作用,但法院受限于司法机构的根本性质,存在难以调节原被告力量失衡、对于特定行为无法救济以及救济不及时的问题。相比之下,反垄断法行政执法机构具有资源与权力配置上的显著优势。更重要的是,现代反垄断法执法的不断发展和演化,使原来简单判断是否违法的执法方式向以提高社会整体福利为目标的管制方式转变。在这一过程中,建立独立的反垄断执法机构、颁布反垄断指南、广泛采用同意裁决、深入运用经济学分析等都是具体表现。与之相应,当反垄断行政执法占据中心地位时,为了确保其不偏离反垄断法的目标,须建立完善的行政机构内部执法程序以及司法审查程序,进行有效制约。     

欧共体“无争议债权支付令”介评

欧共体2004年4月21日通过的第805号规则对“无争议的债权（uncontested claims）”设立了“欧洲执行令”，该支付令可以在各成员国直接得到承认和执行，从而简化了欧共体成员国之间民商事判决的执行手续，进一步加强了各国在判决承认与执行方面的合作，体现了欧洲国际私法的发展方向。     

Holes in the Safety Net? State Liability and the Need for Private Law Enforcement

Following Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy[1991] it was widely considered that State Liability would be an enforcement mechanism that would end the problems the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had contended with through its battle over the adoption or denial of Horizontal Direct Effect of Directives (HDE). In the subsequent years it has been demonstrated that the debate for and against HDE's adoption has continued. This has been due in part to the limitations of State Liability as an effective enforcement mechanism which provides individuals not with their rights, but rather a damages action against the State. This article critiques State Liability and demonstrates the severe limitations which this enforcement mechanism has for those who wish to avail themselves of EC rights denied to them. Such limitations include the piecemeal nature of this method of enforcement; whether cases, particularly from employment law issues, should be heard against the State or the employer causing the problem complained of; and the nature of an enforcement mechanism based on the award of damages. It concludes by analysing this evidence as to whether State Liability is an adequate alternative to HDE, and hence should the enforcement of EC law be brought back from a public law action to the private sphere.     

欧盟竞争法公共执行最终意见在私人诉讼中的证明效力研究

在反垄断执行同时存在公共执行和私人执行两种执行系统的情况下,一个重要的问题是公共执行的最终意见能否在私人诉讼中具有一定程度上的证明效力.美国与欧盟都先后建立了约束力规则或初步证据规则,其主要目标一方面在于减轻原告的举证责任,另一方面在于维持公私执行的一致性同时节省执行成本.但是对约束力规则或初步证据规则的质疑也同时存在,尤其是在司法独立以及被告的程序性权利保障等方面.通过讨论欧盟的公共执行意见在其后的民事反垄断诉讼中的证明效力规则,可为我国统合公私执行,保证法律适用的一致性提供借鉴.     

Enforcement of Civil Rights Law in Private Workplaces: The Effects of Compliance Reviews and Lawsuits Over Time

Has federal antidiscrimination law been effective in moving women and minorities into management? Early studies show that government affirmative action reviews improved the numbers, and rank, of blacks, but evidence of what has happened since 1980 is sparse. There is little evidence that civil rights lawsuits improved the employment status of women or African Americans. We examine establishment‐level effects of compliance reviews and lawsuits on the percentage of women and blacks in management. We find that compliance reviews, which alter organizational routines, had stronger and more lasting effects than lawsuits, which create disincentives to discriminate. We also find that deregulation was more consequential for compliance reviews than for lawsuits: Compliance reviews initiated in the 1980s were less effective than those initiated in the 1970s. Not so for lawsuits. Compared to lawsuits, compliance reviews appear to have a greater capacity to elicit lasting organizational change, but their effects are mediated by the regulatory environment.     

基层法院的执行生态与非均衡执行

执行生态是指法院执行活动所处的环境和氛围,主要包括组织纵向生态、横向生态组成的法院内生态,以及政治生态、经济生态和社会生态组成的法院外生态。对基层法院的调研表明,当前执行工作面临的来自法院外生态的压力过大,这些压力包括政治生态的治理压力、经济生态的救济压力和社会生态的互动压力,而法院内部生态也在一定程度上加大了这些压力。执行生态的过重压力催生出法院对非均衡执行策略的需求与偏好,导致法院一方面通过终结本次执行及执行和解来规避压力,另一方面通过周期性启动运动式执行来缓解压力。非均衡执行策略容易诱发执行不规范现象,有损执行权威。要实现"切实解决执行难"的目标,需要改善执行生态,弱化法院对非均衡执行策略的需求,其中的关键是要建构社会场景下的执行权威,实现良性的执行生态与能动的均衡执行的相互促进。     

The FCPA and analogous foreign anti-bribery laws overview, recent developments, and acquisition due diligence

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points

• Securities regulators and law enforcement authoritiesare increasingly active in the application of anti-bribery lawsin the global environment. This renewed emphasis on rootingout transnational corruption has substantial implications forparticipants in the global capital markets engaged in cross-bordermergers and acquisitions.
• More than ever, there is a risk thattransactions improperly structured or subjected to inadequatedue diligence may result in unexpected criminal or civil liabilitiesof unprecedented scope and severity.
• This article is intendedas a brief primer on the essentials of the Foreign Corrupt PracticesAct a summary of the most current global developments in globalanti-bribery enforcement, and basic guidance on the due diligenceefforts that prudent participants in a cross-border transactionshould consider.