In the anti-cartel investigation against Tetra, the antimonopoly authority concluded that Tetra had abused its dominant position in three relevant markets in China between 2009 and 2013 and concluded that it had no legitimate reason to apply loyalty allowances. In its decision to impose a penalty, the antimonopoly authority recognised that the rebate is a habitual commercial behaviour that can promote competition in the market and benefit consumers. In the meantime, the Authority considers that loyalty discounts granted by undertakings with a dominant position should be regulated if they are combined with certain market conditions and have a clear anti-competitive effect. On 26 June 27, 2019, the Public Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) adopted the transitional provisions prohibiting monopoly agreements (the „transitional provisions“) as well as two other transitional provisions, namely the transitional provisions prohibiting the misuse of administrative restrictions to eliminate or restrict competition and the transitional provisions on the prohibition of abuses of a dominant position (together, the „three sets of provisions“). These three provisions will enter into force on 1 September 2019. Thirdly, there are a large number of anti-cartel investigations against vertical agreements in China. For example, in the automotive sector, AUDI was fined RMB 248.6 million for U/min in 2014 for the sale of motor vehicles and after-sales services, and Mercedes-Benz was fined €375 million in 2015. In 2015, Dongfeng-Nissan was fined RMB 123.3 million for U/min for car sales and SAIC-GM was fined RMB 201 million for U/min for car sales in 2015. And Chang`an-Ford was fined RMB 162.8 million for RPM for selling cars. From 2019, the Intellectual Property Court of the High People`s Court will be able to bypass the higher people`s courts and hear direct appeals against judgments and judgments of first instance concerning civil and administrative monopoly cases of the intellectual property courts and the average people`s courts (the provisions relating to several issues related to the Intellectual Property Court).
In practice, this rule is called „leapfrog“. Reactions focused on areas such as the legislative objective, the implementation of competition policy, the system of fair competition control, monopoly agreements, abuse of a dominant position, the system for notifying concentrations of undertakings, the abuse of administrative powers to eliminate or restrict competition, investigations into alleged illegal practices and the increase in legal liability for operators. concentration ons. It`s a shock. There are no laws or regulations that stipulate that some kind of vertical or restrictive convention is protected per se. However, in practice, the following vertical agreements are generally unlikely to fall under the LSA: 2.15 Have enforcement authorities adopted formal guidelines on vertical agreements? Shortly after the publication of this SPC decision, the SAMR adopted on July 1, 2019, the Interim Regulation on the Prohibition of Monopoly Agreements (the „Monopoly Agreements Regulation“). The Regulation on monopolies agreements applies to the fact that the agreements specifically listed in Article 14 of the aml, namely agreements which set resale prices or limit the lowest resale prices, are in themselves considered illegal. . . .