反垄断典型案例释放强化公平竞争司法信号

Group 1 - The core viewpoint emphasizes the need to strengthen antitrust measures and promote fair competition policies as an inherent requirement for improving the socialist market economy system [1] - During the 2025 China Fair Competition Policy Promotion Week, the Supreme People's Court released five typical antitrust cases to clarify and standardize the rules for antitrust adjudication, providing clearer behavioral guidelines for various enterprises [2][4] - The Supreme People's Court's ruling against exclusive operating rights granted to a specific company in the shared electric bike sector highlights the violation of antitrust laws and the importance of maintaining fair competition [3][4] Group 2 - The case regarding the cement association's horizontal monopoly agreement illustrates the potential for industry associations to engage in monopolistic behavior, prompting the need for clear boundaries in their operations [5][6] - The Supreme People's Court's decision in the cement association case reinforces the prohibition of industry associations from facilitating monopolistic agreements among their members [6] - The ruling clarifies that industry associations must operate within legal frameworks and cannot manipulate prices or undermine fair competition [6] Group 3 - A significant ruling addressed the rights of victims of horizontal monopolistic agreements, establishing that damages can be claimed even when contracts were signed during the period of monopolistic behavior [7][8] - The court determined that the price increases during the contract period were a result of the monopolistic agreement, allowing for the presumption of damages suffered by the victim [8] - The ruling also clarified the burden of proof regarding claims of price increases due to non-monopolistic factors, placing the onus on the monopolistic entity to provide evidence [8]