CHINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yi Xue, Zhong Lun
by defendants, plaintiffs often faced unfavourable out - comes, including losing cases. Moreover, in past cas - es involving the same alleged monopolistic conduct, inconsistencies occasionally arose between courts and antitrust law enforcement authorities regarding legal application and factual findings. This led to situ - ations where ‒ even if an antitrust law enforcement authority had determined that a specific act consti - tuted monopolistic conduct ‒ plaintiffs might still lose follow-on litigation cases involving the same alleged conduct, owing to failure to meet evidentiary require - ments. The burden-of-proof principle clarified in Article 10 of the New Judicial Interpretation will significantly allevi - ate the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs in civil lawsuits that follow antitrust administrative penalties. It will also ensure greater consistency in how administrative law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities identify and address the same alleged monopolistic conduct. Since the New Judicial Interpretation took effect, Arti - cle 10 has been promptly cited and applied in antitrust litigation cases. By way of example, in the “Natural Gas Company Tying Arrangement” case adjudicated by the SPC on 29 August 2024, the defendant (a nat - ural gas company) had engaged in the abuse of its dominant market position through tied selling from 2009 to 2018. This monopolistic conduct had already been legally confirmed and penalised by the antitrust law enforcement authority in May 2020. In its judgment, the SPC held that ‒ given that the defendant failed to present evidence in the case to refute the basic facts established in the effective administrative penalty decision ‒ the plaintiff, upon submitting the valid administrative penalty decision, was not required to provide additional evidence to prove that the defendant had committed the alleged monopolistic conduct. Ultimately, the SPC ruled that the defendant’s conduct constituted a monopoly and ordered it to compensate the plaintiff for the economic losses caused by such conduct. Arbitration agreement cannot exclude court jurisdiction Whether parties in monopoly litigation cases may exclude court jurisdiction by agreeing to an arbi -
tration clause has long been a contentious issue in China’s judicial practice, with courts issuing mark - edly divergent rulings in several prior cases. The New Judicial Interpretation has clarified a unified adjudica - tive standard on this matter. Article 3 provides that, where a party initiates an antitrust civil lawsuit with a court and the opposing party contends that the court should refuse to accept the case on the grounds that a contractual relationship exists between the parties that includes an arbitration clause, the court shall not uphold such contention. In fact, prior to the promulgation of the New Judi - cial Interpretation, the SPC had already articulated its position in several cases. Given the public law nature of the Anti-Monopoly Law, monopoly disputes typi - cally extend beyond the private interests of the parties involved, meaning that an arbitration clause agreed upon by the parties cannot automatically preclude court jurisdiction. Following the New Judicial Inter - pretation’s release, the SPC applied Article 3 for the first time in the “Vegetable Wholesale Market” case ‒ a dispute involving alleged abuse of dominant market position adjudicated on 25 July 2024 ‒ thereby reaf - firming this stance. In the Vegetable Wholesale Market case, the plaintiff (a vegetable wholesaler) had signed a contract with the defendant (an agricultural products company) to operate in the vegetable market managed by the defendant. During contract performance, the defend - ant required the plaintiff to refrain from operating in other vegetable markets and unilaterally tripled the plaintiff’s service fees. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging that the defendant had abused its dominant market position by restricting ‒ without jus - tifiable reason ‒ the plaintiff to trading exclusively with the defendant. Owing to the presence of an arbitration clause in their contract, the court of first instance ruled that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, the SPC held that the case transcend - ed mere contractual rights and obligations between the parties, as it involved determining whether the defendant held a dominant market position and had engaged in abusive conduct. The alleged monopolis - tic conduct, the SPC emphasised, directly impacted fair market competition order, consumer interests,
67 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook