In 2013, the Antimonopoly Act was amended. As a result of the amendment, the JFTC’ s hearing procedure for administrative appeals was abolished, and accordingly the substantial evidence rule and the restriction on offering new evidence was abolished. Instead of these rules, the procedures for a hearing presided over by an officer designated by the JFTC introduced procedures prior to issuing final orders. Furthermore, appeals against administrative orders issued by the JFTC will be heard at Tokyo District Court as appeal suits. The 2013 Antimonopoly Act Amendment has brought a big change in the procedures of the Antimonopoly Act. In the operation of the new procedures, it is necessary to consider what kind of system the new procedures is and what changes are required. In particular, since the roles of the JFTC and the court have changed greatly, it is useful to clarify the relationship between administrative procedures and judicial reviews under the new Antimonopoly Act and consider the positioning of each procedure. This study considers the positioning of administrative procedures and judicial reviews under the Antimonopoly Act based on comparative legal studies across Japan, Germany and the EU.

一橋大学大学院法学研究科

2019-03-10

Japanese(jpn)

departmental bulletin paper

VoR

10.15057/30228

1347-0388

AA1161370X

一橋法学

18

1

93

132

18巻1号(2019.3)

https://hdl.handle.net/10086/30228