Wu Chunxu
When courts review administrative penalty decisions issued by anti-monopoly enforcement authorities (AMEA), the primary focus is on the ‘legality’ of the challenged administrative act. Correspondingly, courts are expected to conduct a full review of evidentiary assessment, fact-finding, and the interpretation and application of substantive and procedural law. In practice, the ‘sufficiency’ of judicial review defies binary categorization. Rather, the materials examined suggest a discrepancy between what the statutory design expects courts to scrutinize and what is explicitly articulated in judicial reasoning, rendering the assessment necessarily more nuanced. Drawing on 15 administrative judgments identified through strict screening, three textually observable areas emerge in which this gap is most pronounced: the coordination of overlapping regulatory rules, the specification of key substantive legal interpretations, and the handling of procedural issues. On this basis, targeted refinements to substantive legal tests and procedural safeguards are proposed. Meanwhile, to the extent that judicial review is less fully expressed in some cases, the AMEA may assume a more central role in shaping the interpretation and application of substantive and procedural rules. This agency-centered allocation, nonetheless, should not be deemed inherently negative, given the administrative expertise and the policy-infused character of anti-monopoly enforcement.
内容提要 法院对反垄断执法机关行政处罚决定的司法审查，应以具体行政行为的合法性审查为中心，对证据评价、事实认定以及实体与程序规则的理解适用实施全面审查。实践中，司法审查的“强度”难以简单归为充足或不足。所考察的材料表明，法律所期待的审查内容与裁判理由中实际呈现的内容存在差距，评估因而更需细化。基于严格筛查的15份有效裁判文书，可识别三类差距。第一，部分法院未能协调适用管辖范围重叠的行政规章。第二，部分法院对实体法律规则的适用出现理解偏差。第三，部分法院对程序瑕疵与程序权利保障缺乏足够关注。对于这些现象可以通过澄清实体规则、加强程序保障以及优化审判机制得到改善。同时，在司法审查未能充分展开时，执法机关将更居于解释与适用实体和程序规则的核心位置。鉴于其专业优势与反垄断执法的政策属性，此种配置未必会导致负面后果。