CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Yi Xue, Zhong Lun
No 1547), the court affirmed that the plaintiff is not required to provide additional evidence to prove that the defendant engaged in the alleged monopolistic conduct if the prior penalty decision made by an NCA regarding the same monopolistic conduct has taken effect and the defendant failed to present contrary evidence to overturn the basic facts determined in that prior effective decision. Owing to the defendant’s tying arrangement, the court ordered compensation based on a comprehensive consideration of the plain - tiff’s actual losses and lost profits. This ruling lawfully reduces the plaintiff’s burden of proof regarding the alleged monopolistic conduct and provides a refer - ence for damages determination. Arbitrability of antitrust civil disputes In the “Vegetable Wholesale Market” case (Case No (2024) ZUI GAO FA MIN ZHI ZHONG No 748), a dis - pute involving alleged abuse of market dominance, the court acknowledged that ‒ in accordance with the New Judicial Interpretation ‒ an arbitration agreement cannot preclude the jurisdiction of the court over anti - trust civil disputes. This case confirms that an arbitra - tion agreement between the parties does not preclude the court from accepting and hearing a case related to monopolistic conduct. 2. Private Antitrust Claims: Basis and Procedure 2.1 Statutory Basis Article 60 of the AML states that an undertaking that carries out monopoly acts and causes losses to oth - ers will bear civil liability under the AML. According to Article 43 of the New Judicial Interpretation, the court may order the undertaking that conducted monopo - listic behaviour to bear civil liabilities such as ceasing infringement and compensating for losses based on the plaintiff’s claims and facts ascertained. Per Article 48 of the New Judicial Interpretation and Article 153 of the Civil Code, where the clauses of the contracts, the resolutions or the articles of association of trade associations involved in lawsuits violate the manda - tory provisions of the AML or other laws and admin - istrative regulations, the court will rule such clauses or documents as invalid.
In terms of the types of claims, both standalone and follow-on claims are available. Article 2 of the New Judicial Interpretation stipulates that the plaintiff may directly file an antitrust lawsuit to the court or file a civil lawsuit after the decision of the AML enforcement agency that monopolistic conduct exists takes effect. If the filed case satisfies the acceptance criteria stipu - lated by the laws, the court will accept the case. How - ever, the second paragraph of Article 2 also provides that the court will not accept a case where the plaintiff merely files the lawsuit asking the court to confirm that the defendant’s specific act constitutes monopoly but does not ask the defendant to bear civil liability. 2.2 Courts According to Article 4 of the New Judicial Interpre - tation, first-instance monopoly disputes are handled centrally by IP courts and intermediate people’s courts determined by the SPC. For appeals against first- instance monopoly litigation, the second-instance case will be handled by the Intellectual Property Court of the SPC. Monopoly-related disputes may be transferred between courts. Relevant cases should be transferred where: • the claim was not filed because of a monopoly dispute but the defendant then raises a defence or counterclaim on the grounds that the plaintiff has carried out monopolistic behaviour and there is sufficient evidence to support it; or • the case needs to be adjudicated according to the AML but the court does not have monopoly juris - diction over civil cases. 2.3 Impact of Competition Authorities According to Article 10 of the New Judicial Interpreta - tion, if the AML enforcement authority has confirmed the existence of a monopolistic practice and this deci - sion has not been challenged through administrative litigation within the statutory period or it has been upheld by an effective ruling of a court, the plaintiff in a related civil monopoly dispute case is not required to provide further evidence to prove these facts ‒ unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. In addition, Article 114 of the Interpretation of the Supreme Peo - ple’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure
55 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook