• Document Number：Interpretation No. 5 [2012] of the Supreme People’s Court
• Area of Law： Civil Law Anti-Unfair Competition
• Level of Authority： Judicial Interpretation
• Date issued：05-03-2012
• Effective Date：06-01-2012
• Issuing Authority： Supreme People's Court
• Status： Effective

Announcement of the Supreme People's Court
The Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolistic Conduct, as adopted at the 1539th Session of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on January 30, 2012, are hereby issued and shall come into force on June 1, 2012.
March 3, 2012
Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolistic Conduct
(Interpretation No. 5 [2012] of the Supreme People's Court)
To correctly try civil dispute cases arising from monopolistic conduct, interdict monopolistic conduct, protect and promote fair market competition, and maintain the interests of consumers and public interest, these Provisions are formulated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China, the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China, the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and other laws.
Article 1 For the purposes of these Provisions, “civil dispute cases arising from monopolistic conduct” (hereinafter referred to as “civil monopoly dispute cases”) means civil lawsuits filed with the people's courts by natural persons, legal persons, and other organizations for disputes over losses caused by monopolistic conduct or violations of the Anti-Monopoly Law by contractual provisions, bylaws of industry associations, and so on.
Article 2 Where a plaintiff directly files a civil lawsuit with the people's court or files a civil lawsuit with the people's court after a decision of the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority affirming the existence of monopolistic conduct comes into force, if the lawsuit satisfies other conditions for lawsuit acceptance as prescribed by law, the people's court shall accept the lawsuit.
Article 3 The intermediate people's court of a city where the people's government of a province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government is located or a city under separate state planning or the intermediate people's court designated by the Supreme People's Court shall have jurisdiction over civil monopoly dispute cases as the court of first instance.
With the approval of the Supreme People's Court, a basic people's court may have jurisdiction over civil monopoly dispute cases as the court of first instance.
Article 4 The territorial jurisdiction over civil monopoly dispute cases shall be determined in light of the actual circumstances of a case and in accordance with the jurisdiction provisions of the Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations regarding torts, contract disputes, and so on.
Article 5 Where the cause of action for a civil dispute case is not a monopoly dispute when a case is docketed but there is evidence supporting the defendant's defense or counter-claim that the plaintiff has committed monopolistic conduct or judgment or ruling on the case is to be rendered in accordance with the Anti-Monopoly Law, the people's court accepting the lawsuit, if having no jurisdiction over civil monopoly dispute cases, shall transfer the case to the people's court having jurisdiction.
Article 6 Where two or more plaintiffs have respectively filed lawsuits for the same monopolistic conduct with the same court having jurisdiction, the people's court may try the cases concurrently.
Where two or more plaintiffs have respectively filed lawsuits for the same monopolistic conduct with different courts having jurisdiction, the court that dockets the case later shall, after learning another court's earlier docketing of the case, rule within seven days to transfer the case to the court which dockets the case earlier; and the court that accepts the transferred case may try the cases concurrently. The defendant shall, at the stage of submitting a statement of defense, actively provide the people's court accepting the lawsuit with relevant information on its involvement in lawsuits in other courts for its same conduct.
Article 7 Where the alleged monopolistic conduct is a monopolistic agreement as described in Article 13.1(1)-(5) of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the defendant shall assume the burden to prove that the agreement does not have the effect of excluding or restricting competition.
Article 8 Where the alleged monopolistic conduct is an abuse of a dominant market position as described in Article 17.1 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the plaintiff shall assume the burden to prove that the defendant has a dominant position in the relevant market and has abused its dominant market position.
The defendant shall assume the burden to prove a defense of justification of its conduct.
Article 9 Where the alleged monopolistic conduct is an abuse of a dominant market position by a public utility or any other business operator that has a dominant position pursuant to law, the people's court may, in light of the market structure and the specific circumstances of competition, determine that the defendant has a dominant position in the relevant market, unless such a determination can be overturned by contrary evidence.
Article 10 A plaintiff may use information externally released by a defendant as evidence that the defendant has a dominant market position. Where the information externally released by the defendant is sufficient to prove that the defendant has a dominant market position in the relevant market, the people's court may make a determination on this basis, unless such a determination can be overturned by contrary evidence.
Article 11 Where evidence involves any national secret, trade secret, individual privacy, or other information that is confidential pursuant to law, the people's court may, according to its functions or upon the application of a party, adopt protective measures, such as conducting a hearing in camera, restricting or prohibiting duplication, adducing the evidence only to the parties' attorneys, and ordering the execution of a confidentiality agreement.
Article 12 A party may apply to the people's court to call one or two persons with relevant expertise to explain special case issues in court.
Article 13 A party may apply to the people's court to employ a professional institution or professionals to produce market investigation or economic analysis reports on special issues of a case. With the permission of the people's court, both parties may, by consultation, determine the professional institution or professionals; and if such consultation fails, the people's court shall designate the professional institution or professionals.
The people's court may examine and assess the market investigation or economic analysis reports as mentioned in the preceding paragraph by referring to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations regarding identification conclusions.
Article 14 Where a defendant's monopolistic conduct has caused any losses to the plaintiff, the people's court may, in light of the plaintiff's claims and the finding of facts, order the defendant to cease infringement, compensate for losses, and otherwise assume civil liability in accordance with law.
According to the plaintiff's claim, the people's court may include the plaintiff's reasonable expenses on investigation and prevention of the monopolistic conduct in the scope of compensation for losses.
Article 15 Where the alleged contractual provisions, bylaws of an industry association, and so on violate the compulsory provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law or any other law or administrative regulation, the people's court shall determine such contractual provisions, bylaws, and so on to be invalid in accordance with law.
Article 16 The statute of limitations for claims for damages arising from monopolistic conduct shall be calculated from the day when the plaintiff knows or should have known the infringement upon its rights and interests by the monopolistic conduct.
Where the plaintiff reports the alleged monopolistic conduct to the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority, the statute of limitations is interrupted from the date of such a report. If the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority decides not to open a case, decides to revoke a case or decides to terminate investigation, the statute of limitations shall be re-calculated from the day when the plaintiff knows or should have known the decision not to open a case, decision to revoke a case, or decision to terminate investigation. If the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority determines after investigation that the alleged monopolistic conduct exists, the statute of limitations shall be re-calculated from the day when the plaintiff knows or should have known that the decision of the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority affirming the existence of monopolistic conduct has come into force.
Where the alleged monopolistic conduct has continued for more than two years when the plaintiff files the lawsuit, if the defendant raises a statute of limitations defense, the compensation for damages shall be calculated for the two years before the day of filing of the lawsuit.