The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) released the Anti-trust Guideline for Automotive Industry (draft for comment) (the Guideline) to solicit public opinions. One of the big attractions of the Guideline is the introduction of the concept of presumed exemption for vertical agreements.Presumed exemption for vertical agreements
It is burdensome for not only the enforcement agencies but the business operators, economically and technically, to precisely implement prohibitions of vertical monopoly agreements and to successfully apply the limited exemptions under the safe harbour provision. To provide a guide to the enforcement agencies to correctly apply Article 14 and Article 15 of the Anti-Monopoly Law (the AML) and to help lower the business operators’ cost in connection with their daily regulatory compliance, the Guideline introduces the presumed exemption for vertical agreements. Generally, certain types of restrictions on territory and customers set by business operators who have no appreciable market power (the Presumed Exemptions), as expressly listed in the Guideline, may be presumed to fall into the exemption categories under Article 15 of the AML.
The Presumed Exemption is transplanted from the concept of block exemption under EU competition law. Under the system of block exemption, the exemption provided for in Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union can apply to vertical agreements where the market shares of the supplier and the buyer satisfy statutory standards and the vertical agreements do not contain hardcore restrictions, for example, the restrictions of territory and customers, except for certain special situations (such special situations are similar to those Presumed Exemptions in the Guideline as further discussed below).
No appreciable market power
With respect to the criteria of “no appreciable market power”, the Guideline provides that if a business operator occupies less than 25 percent to 30 percent market shares in the relevant market, it is likely that such business operator will be deemed to have no appreciable market power. However, the Guideline fails to further clarify the upper limit of market shares for evaluating whether a business operator has no appreciable market power, 25 percent, 30 percent or any percentage ranging between 25 percent and 30 percent. Moreover, the Guideline keeps silent in terms of market definition and market share calculation, which will lead to the uncertainty in the implementation of the Guideline.
Presumed Exemptions
The Guideline highlights the following typical Presumed Exemptions in terms of restrictions on territory and customers:
a. To limit a distributor to conducting sales activities within its own business premises while passive sales or cross-supplies between distributors is not restricted;
b. To prohibit a distributor from conducting active sales to a territory or a specific group of customers which the motor vehicle supplier has reserved exclusively for another distributor;
c. To prohibit a wholesaler from conducting direct sales to end users; and
d. To prohibit a distributor from selling spare parts to a customer who will use such spare parts to manufacture the products same as those of the motor vehicle supplier.
Exceptions to Presumed Exemptions
As far as a specific case is concerned, pursuant to the Guideline, in the event that there are solid evidences that can prove inconformity of the business operator’s behaviour with Article 15 of the AML, the enforcement agency can still apply Article 14 of the AML. That is to say, even though a business operator does have no appreciable market power and its behaviors fall into the Presumed Exemptions, it will not necessarily rule out entirely the likelihood of being deemed as vertical monopoly agreements. In addition, since the Guideline is a regulatory document which has no binding effect upon the courts, the counterparty affected by the vertical agreement may still bring lawsuit to courts for remedy, even if the restrictions are deemed to be permissible by enforcement agencies pursuant to the Guideline.
Application of Presumed Exemptions limited to automotive industry
The system of block exemption under EU competition law can apply to all the industrial sectors. However, the Presumed Exemptions in the Guideline will be applicable only to territory and customer restrictions set by business operators in the automotive industry. The Anti-trust Guideline for the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights (draft for comment) drafted by NDRC does not expressly mention the concept of presumed exemptions but provides that Article 15 of the AML can be presumed to apply to the agreement related to intellectual property rights if it is concluded by business operators whose market shares satisfy certain standards.
汽車業反壟斷執法指南提出縱向協議推定豁免
根據國務院反壟斷委員會的工作計劃，國家發展改革委員會起草了《關於汽車業的反壟斷指南》（“《指南》”）。其中，縱向協議推定豁免是《指南》的一大亮點。
《反壟斷法》“原則禁止和例外豁免”制度
《反壟斷法》第十四條以非窮盡的方式列舉了構成縱向壟斷協議需要禁止的幾種情形。但是，如果經營者可以証明協議符合《反壟斷法》第十五條，不會嚴重限制相關市場的競爭，並且能夠使消費者分享由此產生的利益的，則該協議不適用第十四條的禁止性規定。
縱向協議的推定豁免
為了指導執法機關正確適用《反壟斷法》第十四條和第十五條並為經營者合規工作提供參考，《指南》提出了縱向協議的推定豁免，從而細化了《反壟斷法》中的“原則禁止和例外豁免”
制度。
《指南》列出了不具有市場顯著力量的經營者設置的地域限制和客戶限制的若干情形（“推定豁免情形”）可以推定適用《反壟斷法》第十五條的例外豁免規定。
這一規定借鑒了歐盟競爭法下集體豁免制度（Block Exemption），即隻要供應方和購買方的市場份額都符合一定標准，他們之間達成的縱向協議可以推定適用《歐盟運作模式條約》第一百零一條第三款的規定而被豁免，隻要縱向協議中不包含以限制競爭為目的的核心條款，如供方在協議中限制買方銷售商品的地域或者顧客（特定的情形除外，這些特定情形與下文所述的適用推定豁免情形基本相同）。
不具有市場顯著力量
關於“不具有市場顯著力量”的標准，《指南》給出的解釋是在相關市場上佔有25%-30%以下市場份額的經營者有可能被認定為不具有市場顯著力量。
《指南》並未規定具體以25%還是30%亦或是25%-30%之間的某一市場份額比例作為判斷經營者不具有市場顯著力量的上限。同時，指南並未就相關市場界定和份額計算作出更詳細的說明，存在一定的不明確性。
推定豁免情形
適用推定豁免的地域限制和客戶限制的情形主要包括：
（1）約定經銷商僅在其營業場所進行經銷活動，但不限制該經銷商的被動銷售，也不限制經銷商之間交叉供貨。
（2）限制經銷商對汽車供應商為另一經銷商保留的獨佔地域或專有客戶進行主動銷售。
（3）限制批發商直接向最終用戶進行銷售。
（4）為避免配件被客戶用於生產與汽車供應商相同的產品，限制經銷商向該類客戶銷售配件。
需要特別指出的是，《反壟斷法》並未明確規定地域限制與客戶限制是否合法。但是此次《指南》卻對汽車業經營者設置地域限制和客戶限制在相關市場份額及縱向協議推定豁免的問題上特別作出細化規定，這些規定明顯較《反壟斷法》更加嚴格。因此，該執法趨勢應當引起注意。
推定豁免的例外情況
《指南》進一步規定，根據個案具體情形，如果有証據能夠証明經營者的行為不符合《反壟斷法》第十五條的規定，反壟斷執法機構仍然可以對相關行為適用《反壟斷法》第十四條。也就是說，即使經營者不具有市場顯著力量的條件並且其採取的限制屬於推定豁免情形，也無法完全排除被認定為實施壟斷協議的風險。同時，鑒於《指南》屬於其他行政規范性文件，對司法機關沒有約束力，即使執法機關基於《指南》認定經營者行為適用第十五條，受影響的當事人仍然可以向司法機關提起訴訟尋求救濟。所以，《指南》並未創設真正意義上的安全港，但具有一定的參考價值。
推定豁免僅適用於汽車業經營者設置的地域限制和客戶限制
歐盟競爭法下的集體豁免制度規定在一部統一的歐盟條例中並適用於全部行業，而本文所提到的推定豁免僅適用於汽車業經營者設置的地域限制和客戶限制。在國家發展改革委員會起草的另一部《關於濫用知識產權的反壟斷指南》征求意見稿沒有直接提及推定豁免，但規定達成相關知識產權協議的經營者符合一定市場份額條件，推定該知識產權協議適用《反壟斷法》第十五條。
推定豁免概念與操作仍屬於壟斷執法和合規建設的試水階段，后續能否擴展到全部反壟斷領域值得關注。
_________
8F, Kerry Parkside Office,1155 Fang Dian Road, Shanghai 201204, P. R. China
Tel: (86) 21 50101666 / Fax: (86) 21 50101222
E: kevin.xu@mhplawyer.com
franz.li@mhplawyer.com
info@mhplawyer.com
W: www.mhplawyer.com |
