Exemption Of Monopoly Agreements

In addition, section 15 of the AmL determines the circumstances under which a waiver may be granted for certain cartel conduct. In particular, an agreement may be excluded if it simultaneously meets the following three conditions. However, given the limited sales rights and limited risks, an intermediary distributor differs from traditional distributors. In practice, therefore, further clarification of the meaning and definition of the term “intermediates,” in particular the differences between intermediate and traditional distributors, needs to be clarified. Companies should carefully consider the specific functions and roles of a distributor in a transaction before imposing on these RPM distributors, to determine whether they can be considered a distribution intermediary eligible for the individual exemption. We will continue to monitor further information from SAMR on the application of individual exemptions for RPM. Compliance Advice: The automotive guidelines provide for restrictions imposed by automotive OEMs, such as fixing sales. B, the objective of inappropriate sales or the quality and diversity of the spare parts stock, may impose exclusive obligations on dealers or repairs, and may also constitute a vertical monopoly agreement contrary to Article 14, paragraph 3 of the AmL. Therefore, even if an automotive OEM does not have a dominant position in the market in question, it will need to continue to carefully consider and assess whether the benchmark sales at issue, the setting of sales targets and restrictions on the volume of purchase will impose essentially exclusive purchasing obligations on dealers, thereby limiting competition in the market. Article 50 of the AML states that “[d] factory operators who commit monopolistic behaviour cause harm to others who assume civil liability under applicable legislation.” The ASA therefore authorizes physical institutions and institutions to sue in court.

The most important disputes have been over the abuse of dominant position, such as YingDing v. SINOPEC,24 Qihoo 360 v. Tencent,25 and Huawei v. IDC.26 A number of cases involved vertical agreements, such as Beijing Ruibang Yonghe Technology – Trade Co., Ltd. v. Johnson-Johnson,27 and Rijing Electric v. Panasonic.28 Private litigation against cartels remains rare. The exemption directive specifies the relevant authorities, the timetable for implementation, the steps and documentation required in the event of a breach of monopoly agreements, which will greatly enhance the viability of Article 15 of the DCE and the transparency of the application. In concrete terms: (1) The Council of State and provincial antitrust authorities have jurisdiction. 2.

A company or group makes an exemption application after the antitrust authorities have opened the investigation, but before the final decision. (3) Specific procedures are shown in Figure 1. Anti-monopoly Law sets out the legal framework for banning cartels In this article, we will address some key issues in the automotive guidelines, including the approach to market definition for the automotive industry, vertical monopoly agreements in distribution management, and abuse of a dominant position in after-sales. As an “economic constitution,” the AML not only maintains competitive order in the market, it also affects the business model and business logic of businesses. For businesses, the focus on AML`s recent progress will help protect their rights and interests in fierce competition in the marketplace. In particular, the draft commentary has significantly increased the legal liability of offenders, not only has significantly increased the maximum sentence for offenders, but has also created a scene for the future introduction of criminal debts for monopolistic behaviour, showing that China`s application of cartel rules and abuse of dominance is highly appreciated.