Abstract
This last chapter will provide a brief outlook on litigation in the context of merger review in China. Judicial proceedings can take two different forms: on one hand, parties to a merger or third parties may want to challenge merger review decisions rendered by MOFCOM in an administrative lawsuit; on the other hand, parties to a merger may be sued in private actions for damages for having implemented anticompetitive mergers. As will be explained below, the lack of judicial tradition in China entails that the following statements will be more theoretical in nature. Merger review in China still lacks effective judicial enforcement. Therefore, it is all the more important that MOFCOM pursues the competition policy goals rigorously and upholds competition policy as a motor for economic growth in China.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See, for instance, Wang, H., 8/6 Competition Law Insight 6, 7 (2009).
- 2.
See NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 329 et seq., and Report on the Amendments to the Draft AML, submitted by the NPC Law Committee to the 28th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 10th NPC on 24 June 2007, available at http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/zt/2006-06/24/content_1382614.htm (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014. It has been noted that the provision was only introduced following intensive lobbying by MOFCOM during the legislative process; see Wang, X., 54 Antitrust Bull. 579, 592 (2009).
- 3.
See Zhang, A., The enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law, 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1783037, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 9 et seq.
- 4.
中华人民共和国行政复议法, see Chinese version at http://www.gov.cn/banshi/2005-08/21/content_25100.htm, last accessed 17 June 2012, English translation at http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Law/2007-12/11/content_1383562.htm, last accessed 12 January 2014.
- 5.
Bush, 54 Antitrust Bull. 87, 111 (2009).
- 6.
Meyer/Chen, Z., RIW 2009, 265, 272.
- 7.
Zhang, A., The enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law, 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1783037, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 22 and 27.
- 8.
中华人民共和国行政诉讼法, see Chinese version at http://www.gov.cn/flfg/2006-10/29/content_1499268.htm, last accessed 12 January 2014, English translation at http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Law/2007-12/12/content_1383912.htm, last accessed 12 January 2014.
- 9.
Fosh et al., in: Johnston (ed.), Competition Law in China and Hong Kong, 2009, p. 97, 123.
- 10.
See Harris et al., Anti-Monopoly Law, 2011, p. 172; Wang, P./Zhang, Y., in: GCR (ed.), The Asia-Pacific Antitrust Review 2010, http://www.globalcompetitionreview.com/reviews/25/sections/90/chapters/943/china-merger-control, last accessed 12 January 2014.
- 11.
Johnston, 9/1 Competition Law Insight 13, 13 (2010).
- 12.
Harris et al., Anti-Monopoly Law, 2011, p. 304; Zhang, X., in: Sornarajah/Wang, J. (eds.), China, India and the International Economic Order, 2010, p. 577, 606.
- 13.
Bu, 31 E.C.L.R. 239, 245 (2010).
- 14.
Bu, 31 E.C.L.R. 239, 246 (2010).
- 15.
See Fox, 41 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 473, 486 (2010), http://www.luc.edu/law/activities/publications/lljdocs/vol41_no3/pdfs/fox_design.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, who points out that in European merger control, the Commission showed a higher level of attention to the parties’ rights of defence only subsequent to a series of CFI decisions rendered in 2002 that had overturned relevant Commission merger decisions because of the denial of such rights.
- 16.
See Wei, D., 14 J. Int. Econ. L. 807, 824 (2011). This understanding has been shared by Zhu and Sun (AMB), Interview on 27 October 2011, who indicated that “it would be the merging parties’ duty to provide MOFCOM with documents proving that the concentration would not have any adverse effects”.
- 17.
See also Zhang, A., The enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law, 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1783037, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 22 and 27.
- 18.
Wang, P./Zhang, Y., in: GCR (ed.), The Asia-Pacific Antitrust Review 2010, http://www.globalcompetitionreview.com/reviews/25/sections/90/chapters/943/china-merger-control, last accessed 12 January 2014. Masseli, Chinesische Fusionskontrolle, 2011, p. 230, argues that third parties are not entitled to challenge merger decisions in court.
- 19.
See Chen, Z., Probleme der europäischen Fusionskontrolle, 2008, p. 379, in an outlook on Chinese competition law; Harris et al., Anti-Monopoly Law, 2011, p. 172; NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 329 et seq.; Wang, P./Evrard/Zhang, Y., Supreme Court to Set Framework, 2011, http://www.jonesday.com/antitrust-alert--chinas-supreme-court-to-set-framework-for-antitrust-litigation-05-23-2011/, last accessed 12 January 2014.
- 20.
See Massey, 6 J. Comp. L. & Econ. 853, 858 (2010), on the equivalent situation under the Irish merger control regime.
- 21.
Fosh et al., in: Johnston (ed.), Competition Law in China and Hong Kong, 2009, p. 97, 120 et seq.
- 22.
民事案件案由规定, see Chinese version at http://www.court.gov.cn/xwzx/fyxw/zgrmfyxw/201103/P020110320583535005232.doc, last accessed 12 January 2014.
- 23.
See No. 168 Rules on Civil Causes of Action.
- 24.
最高人民法院关于认真学习和贯彻《中华人民共和国反垄断法》的通知, see Chinese version at http://vip.chinalawinfo.com/newlaw2002/slc/slc.asp?db=chl&gid=107282, last accessed 12 January 2014.
- 25.
This allocation of jurisdiction has been much welcomed; see, for instance, Zhang, A., The enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law, 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1783037, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 29, who argues that judges at IP tribunals are generally well trained and more adept in handling complicated technical and economic evidence, which should facilitate judicial reviews of AML cases. In December 2008, Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court set up a special “anti-monopoly division”, the first of its kind in the country, to handle both civil and administrative AML matters; see Harris et al., Anti-Monopoly Law, 2011, p. 309.
- 26.
最高人民法院关于审理因垄断行为引发的民事纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的规定, see Chinese version at http://www.court.gov.cn/xwzx/xwfbh/twzb/201205/P020120508547481149209.doc, last accessed 12 January 2014.
- 27.
From August 2008 to the end of 2011, Chinese courts accepted 61 civil AML litigation cases nationwide and concluded 53 thereof, see press release of Supreme People’s Court of 8 May 2012, http://www.court.gov.cn/xwzx/xwfbh/twzb/201205/P020120508547480986878.doc (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.
- 28.
See Mao (CASS), Interview on 25 October 2011, who notes that it will be very difficult for claimants to prove causation and direct injury in court.
- 29.
In the Coca-Cola/Huiyuan case, rumours have it that Coca-Cola was ready to accept the prohibition decision in light of the high share price Coca-Cola had offered initially for Huiyuan before the financial crisis triggered the worldwide collapse in share prices; see Masseli, ZChinR 2009, 337, 341.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weinreich-Zhao, T. (2015). Outlook on Judicial Enforcement of Merger Control Law. In: Chinese Merger Control Law. Munich Studies on Innovation and Competition, vol 2. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43868-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43868-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-43867-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-43868-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)