Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law in Trials of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolistic Acts

Article 2: If a plaintiff directly institutes a civil action in a people's court, or institutes a civil action after the handling decision made by an anti-monopoly law enforcement authority finding that a monopolistic act has been constituted becomes legally effective, and other acceptance conditions specified in law are satisfied, the people's court shall accept the same.

Article 3: For a Monopoly Civil Dispute at first instance, the intermediate people's court of the city or the city with independent development plans where the people's government of the province, autonomous region or municipality directly under the central government is located or the intermediate people's court designated by the Supreme People's Court shall have jurisdiction.

Subject to the approval of the Supreme People's Court, a basic-level people's court may be the competent court in a Monopoly Civil Dispute at first instance.

Article 4: Territorial jurisdiction in Monopoly Civil Disputes shall be determined based on the specific circumstances of the case and pursuant to the jurisdiction provisions for tort disputes, contract disputes, etc. of the Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations.

Article 5: If, at the time of opening a civil dispute case, the cause of action is not a monopoly dispute, but the defendant mounts his/her/its defence or countersues on the grounds that the plaintiff has carried out a monopolistic act and has evidence in support thereof, or the judgment in the case needs to be rendered based on the Anti-monopoly Law, but the people's court that accepted the case does not have jurisdiction to hear Monopoly Civil Disputes, it shall transfer the case to the competent people's court.

Article 6: If two or more plaintiffs individually institute legal actions in the same competent court in respect of the same monopolistic act, the people's court may consolidate the cases and hear them together.

If two or more plaintiffs individually institute legal actions in different competent courts in respect of the same monopolistic act, the people's court that opened the case later shall, within seven days after learning of the relevant court opening the case first, rule to transfer the case to the court that opened the case first. The court that accepts the transfer may consolidate the cases and hear them together. The defendant shall take the initiative at the response stage to provide to the people's court that accepted the case information as to its being involved in legal actions in other courts in respect of the same act.

Article 7: If an alleged monopolistic act involves a monopolistic agreement as specified in any of Items (1) to (5) of the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Anti-monopoly Law, the defendant shall bear the burden of proving that the agreement in question does not have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition.

Article 8: If an alleged monopolistic act involves the abuse of dominant market position as specified in the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Anti-monopoly Law, the plaintiff shall bear the burden of proving that the defendant has a dominant position in the relevant market and that it has abused such dominant market position.

If the defendant mounts its defence on the grounds that its act is legitimate, it shall bear the burden of proving the same.

Article 9: If an alleged monopolistic act involves the abuse of its dominant market position by a public utility or other business operator that enjoys an exclusive position in accordance with the law, the people's court may, based on the specifics of the market structure and competition, find that the defendant has a dominant position in the relevant market, unless there is relevant counter evidence sufficient to overturn such a finding.

Article 10: A plaintiff may use information publicly released by the defendant as evidence to substantiate that the defendant has a dominant market position. If information publicly released by the defendant can substantiate that it has a dominant position in the relevant market, the people's court may render its finding based thereon, unless there is relevant counter evidence sufficient to overturn such a finding.

Article 11: If evidence involves state secrets, trade secrets, personal information or other information that, in accordance with the law, is required to be kept confidential, the people's court may, ex officio or pursuant to an application by a concerned party, take protective measures such as in camera trial, restricting or prohibiting reproduction, showing the same only to counsel or ordering the execution of undertakings of confidentiality.

Article 12: A party may apply to the people's court to have one or two persons with relevant specialised knowledge appear in court to provide an explanation of a specialised issue in the case.

Article 13: A party may apply to the people's court to appoint a professional firm or a professional to conduct a market survey or produce an economic analysis report on a specialised issue in the case. Following the consent of the people's court, the parties may determine the professional firm or professional through consultations. If they fail to reach a consensus, the people's court shall make the designation.

The people's court may review and render its judgment on the market survey or the economic analysis report mentioned in the preceding paragraph by making reference to the provisions on forensic conclusions of the Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations.

Article 14: If the defendant, in carrying out the monopolistic act, caused the plaintiff to incur a loss, the people's court may, based on the claims of the plaintiff and the facts that are ascertained, order the defendant in accordance with the law to bear civil liability by halting the harm, compensating for the losses, etc.

At the request of the plaintiff, the people's court may include reasonable expenditures paid by the plaintiff for investigating and putting a stop to the monopolistic act as part of the damages.

Article 15: If the provisions of the contract in question, the charter of the industry association in question, etc. violates mandatory provisions of the Anti-monopoly Law or other laws or administrative regulations, the people's court shall, in accordance with the law, render a finding that they/it are/is invalid.

Article 16: The limitation of actions for the right to claim damages arising from a monopolistic act shall count from the date on which the plaintiff learnt or ought to have learnt of the infringement of his/her/its rights and interests.

If a plaintiff reports the alleged monopolistic act to the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority, the limitation of actions shall be suspended from the date on which the report is filed. If the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority decides to not open a case, withdraw the case or terminate the investigation, the limitation of actions shall start to count anew from the date on which the plaintiff learnt or ought to have learnt of the case not being opened, the case being withdrawn or the investigation being terminated. If the anti-monopoly law authority determines after its investigation that a monopolistic act has been constituted, the limitation of actions shall start to count anew from the date on which the plaintiff learnt or ought to have learnt that the handling decision by the anti-monopoly law authority finding that a monopolistic act was constituted became legally effective.

If, at the time the plaintiff institutes a legal action, the alleged monopolistic act has been ongoing for more than two years and the defendant mounts its defence on the grounds of the limitation of actions, damages shall be counted by extrapolating backward two years from the date on which the plaintiff instituted the legal action in the people's court.