CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Yi Xue, Zhong Lun
1. Introduction 1.1 Current Framework for Private Antitrust Litigation The legislative framework for antitrust civil litigation in China can be broadly divided into substantive rules and procedural rules. Substantive Rules Regarding substantive rules, the primary governing law is the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China (AML), which was initially enacted in 2008 and subsequently revised in 2022. The AML provides the foundation for regulating monopolistic practices, including monopoly agreements, abuse of dominant market positions, and concentrations of undertakings that may exclude or restrict competition. Its purpose is to prevent and curb monopolistic behaviours, protect fair competition, and safeguard consumer interests and social public interests. Among the monopolistic practices under regulation, the behaviours subject to antitrust civil litigation primarily include monopoly agreements and abuse of market dominance. In addition to the AML, various supplementary admin - istrative regulations, departmental rules, guidelines, and judicial interpretations issued by the State Admin - istration for Market Regulation (SAMR), the national competition authority (NCA) and other relevant gov - ernment departments collectively form the substantive legal framework applicable to antitrust civil litigation. These supplementary documents mainly include the Provisions on Prohibition of Monopoly Agreements and the Provisions on Prohibition of Abuse of Mar - ket Dominance, as well as the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concern - ing the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Monopolistic Conduct (the “New Judicial Inter - pretation”) in 2024 (see 1.2 Recent Developments for the main content of this judicial interpretation). Procedural Rules The general civil litigation procedural rules stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Repub - lic of China (the “Civil Procedure Law”) and relevant judicial interpretations also apply to antitrust civil liti - gation cases. Additionally, the New Judicial Interpre - tation has made special provisions for antitrust civil
litigation cases regarding jurisdiction rules, burden of proof, and the effectiveness of evidence, etc. 1.2 Recent Developments On 24 June 2024, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (SPC) formally issued the New Judicial Interpretation. This interpretation repre - sents a significant milestone in China’s antitrust liti - gation landscape, reflecting the evolving legal frame - work and the judiciary’s commitment to addressing the complexity of monopolistic behaviour. By integrating and expanding upon the 2012 Pro - visions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Arising from Monopolistic Conduct, the New Judicial Interpretation – consisting of 51 arti - cles – introduces comprehensive and detailed regula - tions that span both the procedural and substantive aspects of antitrust civil litigation. Regarding procedural issues, jurisdictional rules for cases concerning overseas monopolistic behaviour and arbitration agreements are clarified, the burden of proof is set in a more reasonable manner, and the mechanism strengthening co-operation between judicial practices and law enforcement activities is vigorously advocated. As to the substantive aspect, some hot issues arising frequently in recent antitrust practice have also been further clarified and subject to guidance in the New Judicial Interpretation, such as the single economic entity theory, the assessment of vertical restraints, the assessment of concerted prac - tice, the definition method of a relevant market, and the determination of market dominance. Recent Representative Cases To fully leverage the exemplary and guiding role of judicial adjudication in safeguarding and realising fair competition, the SPC recently released four antitrust model cases in September 2024. Some of the key cases are summarised here. Determination of damages and the burden of proof in follow-on litigation after antitrust administration penalty In the “Natural Gas Company Tying Arrangement” case (Case No (2023) ZUI GAO FA MIN ZHI ZHONG
54 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook