CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Yi Xue, Zhong Lun
undertakings and deprived downstream customers of their legitimate right to free transaction choices. On the grounds that the non-compete clauses violated the mandatory provisions of prohibiting horizontal monopoly agreement and undermined fair market competition, the SPC finally held the disputed clauses null and void. 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 Antitrust Judicial Interpretation, the court may order the undertaking that conducted monopolistic 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 Antitrust Judicial Interpretation and Article 153 of the Civil Code, where the claus - es of the contracts, the resolutions or the articles of association of trade associations involved in lawsuits violate the mandatory provisions of the AML or other laws and administrative 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 Antitrust 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 Antitrust 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 Antitrust Judicial Inter - pretation, if the AML enforcement authority has confirmed the existence of a monopolistic practice and this decision 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 People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Proce - dure Law”) also provides that matters recorded in instruments prepared by national authorities or other organisations with lawful social management func - tions will be deemed true, unless there is sufficient contrary evidence to overturn them. Accordingly, an effective decision made by the NCA and the facts determined therein would have proba - tive value to serve as the basis for the plaintiff to file follow-on litigation. The probative value of the NCA’s effective decision has also been confirmed in judicial practice. In the model antitrust cases, the “Concrete Companies Horizontal Monopoly Agreement” case, “Natural Gas Company Tying Arrangement” case and Miao Chong v SAIC - GM , the SPC affirmed the proba - tive value of NCA decisions in follow-on claims.
66 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook