Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

5 Procedural Fairness in Chinese Antitrust

Jingun (Mary) Ma, D. Daniel Sokol

From: Antitrust Procedural Fairness

D. Daniel Sokol, Andrew T. Guzman

From: Oxford Competition Law (http://oxcat.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved.date: 27 September 2022

Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND) — Price transparency — Abuse of dominant position — Monopoly — Unfair trading conditions — Basic principles of competition law — Enforcement and procedure — Jurisdictions

This chapter discusses China's antitrust laws. The Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) took effect in August 2008. In many ways, the AML appears similar to competition laws in other jurisdictions, with, for example, prohibitions against monopolistic agreements (both horizontal and vertical) and the abuse of dominance. However, from an institutional standpoint, the AML is more complex than competition law systems in other jurisdictions. Unlike a single authority (the norm), three competition authorities jointly share responsibility for enforcing the AML: the Ministry of Commerce, the National Development and Reform Commission, and the State Administration of Industry and Commerce. The Chinese antitrust agencies have considerable discretion with regard to procedural fairness issues under Chinese law. They also have discretion with regard to substantive standards of the application of the AML and related laws. This combination provides for opportunities for the Chinese competition authorities to limit due process and transparency in ways that sometimes impact the substantive application of law.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.