In order to give full play to the exemplary and leading role of typical cases in promoting the spirit of socialist rule of law, clarifying market competition rules and promoting the formation of a fair competition legal environment, the Supreme People's Court issued six typical anti-monopoly cases on September 10 during the 2026 China Fair Competition Policy Publicity Week.
These include the anti-monopoly administrative reconsideration of Shaanxi Cement Association and the State Administration of Market Supervision and Administration.
It is reported that the case was fined 451 million yuan for the joint price increase of 13 cement enterprises organized by Shaanxi Cement Association. Shaanxi Cement Association filed an administrative lawsuit after its application for administrative reconsideration was rejected. The Supreme Court of Final Appeal maintained the original anti-monopoly penalty.
[Basic facts of the case]
In June 2022, a provincial market supervision and administration Bureau made an administrative penalty decision on the organization of the provincial cement association to promote 13 cement enterprises in the province to reach and implement a unified horizontal monopoly agreement to raise the price of cement products, and at the same time issued an administrative guidance to the cement association. The Cement Association is required to carry out comprehensive rectification according to the guidance, operate according to law, formulate rectification plans, and clarify the task of rectification and the time limit for completion. A provincial cement association considers that the administrative guidance of the defendant has set the obligation of rectification and reporting, which is a compulsory administrative act, and applies for administrative reconsideration. The State Administration of Market Supervision and Administration rejected the application for reconsideration on the grounds that the administrative guidance does not fall within the scope of administrative reconsideration. A provincial cement association refused to accept it and filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the revocation of the defendant's reconsideration decision, ordering the State Administration of Market Supervision and Administration to accept its application for administrative reconsideration or revoke the defendant's administrative guidance.
[Judgment Result]
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held in the first instance that the administrative guidance of the defendant was an administrative guidance act and did not fall within the scope of administrative reconsideration, and rejected the claim of a provincial cement association. A provincial cement association refused to accept and appealed. The second instance of the Supreme People's Court held that if the anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement agency makes a decision on administrative penalty for monopolistic acts, it may give administrative guidance to the administrative counterpart at the same time. Although some of the contents of the defendant's administrative guidance use mandatory wording such as "no" and "should", and require a provincial cement association to submit self-examination reports regularly, the above-mentioned opinions are mainly to restate the contents clearly stipulated in laws, regulations and normative documents such as the Anti-monopoly Law. It aims to persuade a provincial cement association and its staff to consciously abide by the prohibitive requirements or law-abiding obligations stipulated in laws, regulations and normative documents such as the Anti-monopoly Law by means of reminders and suggestions, and does not set, change or eliminate specific rights and obligations for a provincial cement association. Moreover, the administrative guidance of the defendant did not restrict the independent choice of a provincial cement association, nor did it have the mandatory legal effect in fact. Therefore, the defendant's administrative guidance letter belongs to the administrative guidance act and does not belong to the scope of administrative reconsideration. Therefore, the final judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a judicial review of anti-monopoly administrative guidance, which is of positive significance to promote flexible law enforcement by anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies. The judgment of this case clarifies the criteria for judging whether the anti-monopoly administrative guidance behavior exceeds the guidance boundary. On the one hand, it reflects the judicial supervision of the people's court over the anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement, so as to ensure the accurate application of the anti-monopoly law and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the administrative counterpart; On the other hand, it reflects the respect and support of the judicial organs for the anti-monopoly law enforcement organs to carry out administrative guidance according to law, so as to strengthen the coordination of law enforcement and judicial performance and jointly maintain fair competition market order.
浙公网安备33010802003254号