TAIWAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Jui-Hua Fan, Hsiang-Yang Hsieh, Chia-Hsin Wu, Chi-Ying Lee and Jin-Han Hsieh, Formosa Transnational Attorneys At Law
the Taiwan Power Company, thereby restraining each other’s business activities and refusing to negotiate with the Taiwan Power Company, effectively delaying the adjustment process (hereinafter referred to as the “Disputed Concerted Actions”). Taiwan’s Fair Trade Commission (TFTC), the Taiwan - ese watchdog agency in the field of competition law, found the Disputed Concerted Actions in violation of Article 14.1 of the 2011 version of the Fair Trade Act (TFTA) (corresponding to Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the current TFTA), which prohibits businesses from engaging in concerted actions. Taiwan’s Supreme Administrative Court upheld TFTC’s finding against PPPs’ challenge. The Taiwan Power Company subsequently filed a civil lawsuit seeking damages against the PPPs for losses allegedly arising from the Disputed Concert - ed Actions. The district court dismissed the Taiwan Power Company’s lawsuit; the appellate court sub - sequently upheld the dismissal. Although the district court and the appellate court both acknowledged that the PPPs had violated Article 14.1 of the 2011 TFTA, the courts at both levels concluded that the Taiwan Power Company failed to prove a substantial correla - tion between the Disputed Concerted Actions and the damages it claimed to have suffered during the rel - evant period. The Taiwan Power Company appealed to the Supreme Court. On 12 May 2025, Taiwan’s Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling, remanding the case back to the appellate court for reconsideration. The Supreme Court reasoned as follows: • Civil damages under the TFTA serve not only to compensate victims for their losses but also to uphold the public interest by maintaining fair market competition. Courts should consider the legislative intent and public interest values embod - ied in the TFTA, enhance protections for victims, encourage the pursuit of civil remedies, and deter unlawful conduct. • Given the complexity of damage causation in market competition cases, when a victim presents evidence establishing certain facts, courts should adopt a prima facie approach to assess causation
between the Disputed Concerted Actions and the damages suffered. • Where a victim has proven the existence of dam - ages but is unable to prove the precise amount or where doing so is evidently difficult, the court may determine an appropriate amount of damages based on the parties’ factual assertions. 2. Private Antitrust Claims: Basis and Procedure 2.1 Statutory Basis Statutory Legal Basis for Damage Claims Article 30 of the TFTA provides an express basis for a plaintiff to claim compensatory damages for breach of Taiwanese competition law. Under this provision, if an enterprise violates any provision of the TFTA and thereby infringes upon the rights and interests of another, the aggrieved party may go to civil courts to seek compensatory damages. Injured Parties Required to Establish Elements of Their Claims Follow-on claims are not available in Taiwan’s legal system. Victims (plaintiffs) bear the burden of proof and must establish all the elements for their claims. Even in a situation where the TFTC finds a particular antitrust law violation, the party injured by the viola - tion still has to prove to the courts that the defendant violated the provisions of the TFTA. In other words, the TFTC’s rulings do not control the findings of courts in relation to whether an alleged violation has in fact occurred. 2.2 Courts There is no specialist competition court or competi - tion judge in Taiwan. However, the antitrust cases will be allocated to the High Court, the IP Court, or the ordinary courts based on different litigations. For administrative litigation, the High Court will have jurisdiction over cases where IP issues are not pre - sent; the IP Court has jurisdiction over cases where IP issues are present. For civil claims, while ordinary courts will have jurisdiction, plaintiffs may go to the IP Court if the subject matter of their claims involves IP issues.
233 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook