CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Yi Xue, Zhong Lun
3. Limitation Periods and the Duration of Litigation 3.1 Statute of Limitations According to the Civil Code and the Antitrust Judi - cial Interpretation, the statute of limitations for rel - evant parties to file claims for damages arising from monopolistic conduct in civil litigation is three years from the date on which the plaintiff became aware or should have reasonably become aware of the harm to its rights and interests, as well as the identity of the party responsible. Lawsuits pertaining to claims where the rights and interests in question have been com - promised for a period exceeding 20 years will not be afforded protection by the court, unless an extension is specifically granted by the court upon application by the relevant parties and under certain exceptional circumstances. Moreover, the limitation periods can be subject to suspension or interruption where the plaintiff reports the monopolistic conduct to an NCA. The limitation periods will be recalculated from the date on which the plaintiff knows or should have known that the NCA’s handling decision is legally effective. 3.2 Typical Length of Private Antitrust Litigation The typical timetable for an antitrust damages claim can range from a few months to several years, depending on various factors that may affect litiga - tion proceedings, such as whether an objection to jurisdiction is raised and whether the case involves a foreign factor. In general, the Civil Procedure Law provides as follows. • For a first-instance case where the ordinary proce - dure is adopted, the court will conclude the case within six months from the date when the case is officially accepted. Under special circumstances where an extension is necessary, the period can be extended by six months upon the approval of the president of the court and – upon the approval of the higher level of court – the period can be further extended if necessary. In cases where the sum - mary procedure is adopted, the court will conclude the case within three months from the date of official acceptance, with the possibility of an exten -
period, or the quality of the defendant’s com - modities significantly declines over a long period without a substantial loss of users, and the relevant market clearly lacks competition, innovation and new entrants. • The defendant maintains a significantly higher market share compared to other undertakings for an extended period and the relevant market clearly lacks competition, innovation and new entrants. As for the anti-competitive effects of a violation of abuse of market dominance, it is commonly under - stood that the burden lies with the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s behaviour has the effect of excluding or restricting market competition. Standard of Proof The standard of proof in antitrust private lawsuits – as in civil claims generally ‒ is the balance of probabili - ties, which is commonly understood as a high degree of probability in China. According to Article 108 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, with regard to the evidence provided by the party with the burden of proof, where the court believes that the existence of a fact to be proved is highly probable upon examination and in light of the relevant facts, it will affirm the existence of that fact. With regard to the evidence provided by a party to contradict the facts claimed by the other party with the burden of proof, where the court believes that the contrary fact to be proved is unclear upon examination and in light of the relevant facts, it will affirm that the fact does not exist. 2.5 Pass-On Defence Clear provisions on the use of the pass-on defence in an antitrust case are absent from the existing legal framework in China. The draft version of the Antitrust Judicial Interpretation had included provisions regard - ing the pass-on defence. Article 45 of the draft had stated that when a plaintiff sought compensation from the defendant and the defendant was able to sub- stantiate that the plaintiff had transferred a portion or the entirety of its economic losses to third parties, the court could deduct the transferred losses when deter - mining the amount of compensation. However, Article 45 was removed entirely in the final enacted version.
68 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook