Antitrust Litigation 2025

JAPAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Koki Yanagisawa, Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu

5. Choice of Jurisdiction 5.1 Rules on Jurisdiction and Applicable Law Rules on Jurisdiction The Code of Civil Procedure provides the basic juris - dictional rules for private antitrust litigation and dam - ages actions. For instance, a local district court having jurisdiction over the location of a defendant’s principal office/domicile has jurisdiction over claims brought against the defendant. A local district court having jurisdiction over the place of violation of the Antimo - nopoly Act also has jurisdiction over claims based on such violation. If more than one court has jurisdiction over the claim at issue, the claimant may, in principle, choose the court where the claims are to be heard. As special jurisdictional rules for antitrust litigation, the Antimonopoly Act provides that the Tokyo District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over follow-on claims for compensation for damages under Article 25 of the Act, and exclusive jurisdiction over a challenge to a cease-and-desist order or an administrative surcharge payment order rendered by the JFTC. The Antimo - nopoly Act also provides that an action for injunction under Article 24 of the Act can be filed with a local dis - trict court in the place where a high court is located; namely, Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Hiroshima, Fukuoka, Sendai, Sapporo and Takamatsu. A defendant may request the court to dismiss the claims due to lack of jurisdiction. If a defendant wish - es to request the court to dismiss the claims due to lack of jurisdiction, the defendant must submit such defence at the same time as, or prior to, submitting Since private antitrust claims for damages are consid - ered as tort claims under Japanese law, the choice- of-law rules on tort claims govern the applicable law for private antitrust claims. Under Japanese choice- of-law rules, the law governing tort claims is the law of the place where the result of the relevant tortious act has occurred. Accordingly, the law of the place where the result of the relevant violation of the Antimonopoly Act has occurred shall govern the relevant antitrust claims for damages. its defence on the merits. Rules on Applicable Law

such collective actions have not been included in the amendments to date. This is because consumers, as prospective plaintiffs, would face significant difficul - ties using the scheme effectively due to the burden of proof. Furthermore, under the current civil court proceedings, multiple claimants are already entitled to bring claims as co-plaintiffs. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, two or more per - sons may file an action as co-plaintiffs if they have: (i) common rights or obligations based on the same factual or statutory cause; or (ii) rights or obligations of the same kind, based on the same kind of factual or statutory causes, as the subject matter of the lawsuits. In addition, the Code of Civil Procedure provides the appointed party system under which each plaintiff or defendant may appoint another plaintiff or defendant as a representative of each plaintiff/defendant. Mul - tiple claimants may use these schemes in bringing competition law claims before civil court proceedings in Japan. In addition, qualified consumer organisations are enti - tled to file actions for injunctions under the Consumer Contract Act, as well as under Article 10 of the Act Against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Rep - resentations. Furthermore, in 2016, the relevant law introduced a new system for consumer organisations qualified by the Japanese government to file a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages under consumer contracts. In such actions, the plaintiffs may assert the defendants’ violation of the Antimonopoly Act. 4.2 Opting In or Out Class actions are not available under Japanese law. See 4.1 Statutory Basis . 4.3 Direct/Indirect Purchasers Class actions are not available under Japanese law. See 4.1 Statutory Basis . 4.4 Class Certification Class actions are not available under Japanese law. See 4.1 Statutory Basis .

103 CHAMBERS.COM

Powered by