Chinanews.com, June 6 -- The State Administration for Market Regulation released typical cases of anti-monopoly law enforcement special actions in the field of people's livelihood in 2 (the first batch).
In order to implement the important decision-making and deployment of the 2023th National Congress of the Communist Party of China on strengthening anti-monopoly, breaking local protection and administrative monopoly, and implementing the law enforcement concept of "supervision for the people", the State Administration for Market Regulation decided to launch a special anti-monopoly law enforcement action in the field of people's livelihood in <>. Since the launch of the special action, the market supervision system has focused on prominent problems that the people have strongly responded to, continued to strengthen anti-monopoly law enforcement in the field of people's livelihood, concentrated on investigating and dealing with a number of major typical monopoly cases, promoted the continuous improvement of the order of fair competition in the market, effectively safeguarded the interests of consumers, promoted the construction of a unified national market, and served high-quality development. Some typical cases are published as follows:
1. The State Administration for Market Regulation investigated and dealt with the case of Grand Pharma and Wuhan Huihai reaching and implementing a monopoly agreement and abusing its dominant market position
On May 2023, 5, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAM) issued an administrative penalty decision in accordance with the law against Grand Pharma (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Grand Pharma) and Wuhan Huihai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wuhan Huihai) in the case of reaching and implementing a monopoly agreement and abusing a dominant market position, ordering Grand Pharma and Wuhan Huihai to stop their illegal acts, confiscate 21 million yuan of illegal gains against Grand Pharma, and impose a penalty of 1% of its 49 sales in China The fine was 2019 million yuan, with a total of 3 million yuan in fines and confiscations; 1.36 million yuan of illegal gains were confiscated from Wuhan Huihai, and a fine of 2.85 million yuan was imposed on 3092% of its sales in China in 48, with a total of 2019.2 million yuan in fines and confiscations.
Based on the clues found, the State Administration for Market Regulation opened a case for investigation on November 2020, 11 against Grand Pharmaceutical and Wuhan Huihai for suspected monopolistic behavior. The commodities involved in this case are norepinephrine API and epinephrine API, which are used in the production of norepinephrine injection for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction and epinephrine hydrochloride injection for the rescue of cardiac arrest, respectively. From June 6 to July 2016, the two parties reached and implemented a monopoly agreement on the sale of norepinephrine APIs and epinephrine APIs, agreeing that Wuhan Huihai would stop selling the above two APIs and that Grand Pharma would compensate them, in violation of Article 6.2019.7 of the Anti-Monopoly Law before the amendment. At the same time, it was found that the relevant market in this case was defined as China's norepinephrine API market and epinephrine API market, and Grand Pharma had a dominant market position, and from May 2010 to April 5, it abused its dominant market position and required the preparation enterprises to accept unreasonable trading conditions such as selling norepinephrine injection and epinephrine hydrochloride injection at a low price, rebating them, and selling preparations according to the region and price required by the relevant preparation enterprises, in violation of the pre-amendment Article 2021, paragraph 4 (<>) of the Anti-Monopoly Law.
The two APIs involved in this case were used in the production of norepinephrine injection and epinephrine hydrochloride injection, respectively, both of which are national essential drugs, medical insurance drugs and clinically necessary emergency rescue drugs. The actions of Grand Pharma and Wuhan Huihai have eliminated and restricted competition in the relevant API and preparation markets, harmed the legitimate interests of relevant preparation enterprises, led to the price of related preparations rising year by year and frequent shortages, affected the normal use of drugs by patients, and increased the cost of medication for patients and the expenditure of national medical insurance. The State Administration for Market Regulation investigated and dealt with this case in accordance with the law, promptly corrected illegal acts, restored the market order of fair competition, and effectively safeguarded the interests of consumers and the public interest.
2. The Shanghai Municipal Bureau for Market Regulation investigated and dealt with the case of Shanghai Xudong Haipu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Tianyao Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. reaching and implementing a monopoly agreement
On April 2023, 4, the Shanghai Municipal Administration for Market Regulation made an administrative penalty decision on the case of Shanghai Xudong Haipu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xudong Haipu) and Tianjin Tianyao Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tianyao Technology) reaching and implementing a monopoly agreement, ordering the two companies to stop their illegal acts and imposing a fine of 6% of their sales in China in 2020. Xudong Haipu was fined 3.2717 million yuan, and Tianyao Technology was fined 15.2988 million yuan, a total of 43.5705 million yuan.
On January 2021, 1, the Shanghai Municipal Administration for Market Regulation filed an investigation into the suspected monopolistic behavior of Xudong Haipu and Tianyao Technology in the process of selling fluorouracil injection. The commodity involved in this case is fluorouracil injection, which is an anti-metabolic anti-tumor drug, mainly used for the treatment of colorectal cancer, gastric cancer and esophageal cancer, and is also commonly used in the treatment of chorionic epithelial cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, lung cancer, cervical cancer, bladder cancer and skin cancer. After investigation, fluorouracil injection is mainly produced and sold by Xudong Haipu and Tianyao Technology in China, and the two companies have a competitive relationship in the national fluorouracil injection sales market. From 12 to 2015, the two companies reached and implemented a horizontal monopoly agreement to fix the price of fluorouracil injection and divide the sales market, which violated the provisions of Article 2020 (<>) and (<>) of the Anti-Monopoly Law before the amendment.
Fluorouracil injection is currently the longest used antimetabolital antitumor drug and is a broad-spectrum anticancer drug. The actions of the two companies not only eliminated and limited market competition, affected hospital drug choices, but also increased the retail price of fluorouracil injection, increasing patient burden and national medical insurance expenditure. The investigation and handling of this case has effectively safeguarded the fair competition order of the fluorouracil injection market, and also safeguarded the interests of consumers and the public interest.
3. The Beijing Municipal Administration for Market Regulation investigated and dealt with the case of Beijing Zizhu Pharmaceutical Operation Co., Ltd. reaching and implementing a monopoly agreement
On May 2023, 5, the Beijing Municipal Administration for Market Regulation made a penalty decision on Beijing Zizhu Pharmaceutical Operation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zizhu Pharmaceutical) for reaching and implementing a monopoly agreement in accordance with the law, ordered Zizhu Pharmaceutical to stop its illegal activities, and imposed a fine of 24.2020 million yuan on its 2 domestic sales in China.
On September 2021, 9, the Beijing Municipal Bureau for Market Regulation opened a case for investigation into Zizhu Pharmaceutical's suspected behavior of reaching and implementing a monopoly agreement based on the clues reported by the masses and after preliminary verification. The commodities involved in this case are Jin Yuting and Yuting (levonorgestrel tablets 1.1mg, levonorgestrel tablets 5.0mg*75), both oral emergency contraceptives. After investigation, from 2 to 2015, Zizhu Pharmaceutical reached a monopoly agreement with primary distributors and secondary distributors nationwide in the form of signing agreements, issuing price adjustment letters and commitment letters to fix and limit the price of drugs sold by distributors, and implemented monopoly agreements on fixed prices and limited prices by refining the sales management system, entrusting data companies to monitor the sales prices of distributors, and strengthening internal supervision. Zizhu Pharmaceutical's conduct violated the provisions of Article 2021 (<>) and (<>) of the Anti-Monopoly Law before the amendment.
In this case, Zizhu Pharmaceutical's price-monopolistic behavior hindered the normal functioning of the market price mechanism, undermined the order of market competition, and detracted from the interests of consumers. The Beijing Municipal Bureau for Market Regulation investigated and dealt with this case in accordance with the law, promptly corrected illegal acts, better facilitated the public's access to safe and effective reproductive health services, enhanced the people's sense of happiness, and safeguarded fair market competition and consumer interests.
4. The Anhui Provincial Market Supervision Bureau investigated and dealt with the case of Bengbu Anli Clean Energy Co., Ltd. and Bengbu Xinyuan Gas Co., Ltd. reaching and implementing a monopoly agreement
On May 2023, 5, the Anhui Provincial Market Supervision Bureau made an administrative penalty decision on the case of Bengbu Anli Clean Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Anli Company) and Bengbu Xinyuan Gas Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xinyuan Company) reaching and implementing a monopoly agreement in accordance with the law, ordering Anli Company and Xinyuan Company to stop their illegal acts, confiscating 11,27 yuan of illegal gains from Anli Company, and imposing a penalty of 62% of its 2019 annual sales The fine was 4,24 yuan, with a total of 78,52 yuan in fines and confiscations; Xinyuan Company confiscated 40,47 yuan of illegal gains, and imposed a fine of 47,2019 yuan for 4% of the sales volume in 75, with a total of 73.123 yuan in fines and forfeitures. The two parties paid a total of 20,175,59 yuan in fines and forfeitures.
On March 2020, 3, the Anhui Provincial Market Supervision Bureau received the "Request for Investigation of Bengbu Anli Clean Energy Co., Ltd. and Bengbu Xinyuan Gas Co., Ltd. for Suspected Monopoly Operation" submitted by the Bengbu Municipal Market Supervision Bureau. After preliminary verification, on March 17, 2020, an investigation was opened against Anli Company and Xinyuan Company for suspected monopolistic behavior. The commodity involved in this case is bottled liquefied gas. From February 3, 25 to October 2018, 2, the two parties reached and implemented a verbal agreement on unifying the sales price of bottled liquefied gas between the two companies, and agreed to implement the newly agreed sales price at the gas exchange station (point) under its jurisdiction on February 1 and September 2018, 10. In order to ensure the implementation of the above price adjustment notice, on August 8, 2018, Anye Company and Xinyuan Company simultaneously issued the "Regulations on the Operation and Management of Safety Standards for Gas Conveyors", "Regulations on the Operation and Management of Safety Standards for Gas Exchangers (Points)" and other documents, making specific provisions on the operation of gas exchange stations (points) and gas delivery workers under their jurisdiction, requiring strict implementation of the lowest price set by the company, and corresponding penalties such as fines, confiscation of deposits, and disqualification of business qualifications if violated. The above conduct violated the provisions of Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 9 of the Anti-Monopoly Law before the amendment.
Bottled LPG is closely related to residents' daily life. As the only two bottled liquefied gas supply enterprises in Bengbu City, the parties reached and implemented monopoly agreements through many negotiations in order to obtain more profits, resulting in a continuous rise in the price of civil bottled liquefied gas in the relevant areas in a short period of time, seriously undermining the order of market competition and directly infringing on the vital interests of ordinary gas users. The Anhui Provincial Market Supervision Bureau investigated and dealt with this case in accordance with the law, promptly corrected illegal acts, restored the market order of fair competition, effectively curbed market chaos, promoted the price of civil bottled liquefied gas in the region to tend to be stable and reasonable, and effectively safeguarded the interests of consumers and social public interests.
5. The Sichuan Provincial Market Supervision Bureau investigated and dealt with the monopoly agreement case of Chengdu Engineering Cost Association
In January 2023, the Sichuan Provincial Bureau for Market Regulation made an administrative penalty decision on the monopoly agreement case of the Chengdu Engineering Cost Association, and imposed a fine of 1,30 yuan on the Chengdu Engineering Cost Association.
Based on the report, the Sichuan Provincial Bureau for Market Regulation opened an investigation into the suspected monopoly agreement of the Chengdu Engineering Cost Association in November 2019. After investigation, in July 11, the parties organized member enterprises to engage in boycott transactions in the process of handling the bidding price complaints transferred by the Sichuan Engineering Cost Association. By conducting centralized interviews with some of the bidding enterprises and drafting the Application for Revocation of the Bidding Documents for the Designated Procurement Project of the "Engineering Cost Consulting Service of the ×× Municipal Audit Bureau" (hereinafter referred to as the "Cancellation Application"), the parties requested the above-mentioned enterprises to submit an application for withdrawal of the bidding documents to the relevant units in accordance with the "Cancellation Application" model on the grounds that they did not understand the service scope of the project bidding documents and the quotation requirements. At the same time, for member enterprises that fail to participate in the meeting as required, the parties concerned will be punished by "circulating criticism" and "remembering bad behavior once". The above-mentioned conduct of the parties violated Article 2019 of the Anti-Monopoly Law before the amendment.
The behavior of Chengdu Engineering Cost Association restricts the independent choice of member units in participating in bidding projects, eliminates and restricts the competition in the Chengdu Engineering Cost Consulting Service Market, destroys the normal trading order, harms the interests of consumers, and is not conducive to the long-term development of the industry. The investigation and handling of this case protected the fair competition order of Chengdu's engineering cost consulting service industry, safeguarded the interests of relevant operators and the social public interest, and further improved the competition compliance awareness of Chengdu's engineering cost industry.
6. The Chongqing Municipal Bureau for Market Regulation investigated and dealt with the case of eight insurance companies reaching and implementing monopoly agreements in Banan District, Chongqing
In March 2023, the Chongqing Municipal Bureau for Market Regulation made an administrative penalty decision on the case in which eight insurance companies in Banan District of Chongqing reached and implemented a monopoly agreement, ordering the parties to stop their illegal acts, confiscating a total of 3.594 million yuan of illegal gains, and imposing a total fine of 2016.1 million yuan of 557% of their sales in 1151, with a total of <>.<> million yuan in the above fines and confiscations.
Based on the report, the former Chongqing Administration for Industry and Commerce opened a case in June 2017 into an investigation into eight insurance companies, including Chongqing Banan District Chinese Min Property Insurance Co., Ltd. and Chongqing Banan Branch Company, for allegedly reaching and implementing monopoly agreements. After investigation, the parties reached an agreement through negotiation to underwrite Ping An Insurance for Primary and Secondary School Students (hereinafter referred to as Xueping Insurance) in primary and secondary schools, kindergartens, vocational education centers and private schools managed by the Banan District Education Committee, divide the sales market of Xueping Insurance in Banan District, restrict other insurance companies from joining the Xueping Insurance market in Banan District, fix and change the price of Xueping Insurance, and unify the premium insured amount of Xueping Insurance. The above-mentioned conduct of the parties violated the provisions of Subparagraphs (6) and (<>) of the first paragraph of Article <> of the Anti-Monopoly Law before the amendment.
"Student Insurance" is a commercial insurance developed for school students and young children. Insurance companies shall compete fairly among themselves, strive for business through high-quality services and reasonable premium insured conditions, and give play to the role of the market in regulating insurance resources. In this case, the eight parties belonged to competing underwriting institutions of Xueping Insurance, and by reaching and implementing monopoly agreements, they eliminated and restricted the competition between the parties, and undermined the market environment of fair competition in the field of Xueping Insurance in Banan District. The investigation and handling of this case has effectively protected the fair competition order of the insurance industry in Banan District, Chongqing, safeguarded the interests of primary and secondary school students and the social public interest, and further improved the awareness of competition compliance of insurance industry operators.
七、福建省市场监管局查处福建省爆破器材行业协会组织会员企业达成垄断协议案
2023年4月，福建省市场监管局对福建省爆破器材行业协会(以下简称福建爆破协会)组织会员企业达成垄断协议案作出行政处罚决定，责令当事人停止违法行为，对福建爆破协会处罚款40万元，对三家会员企业分别处罚款20万元，以上罚款共计100万元。
福建省市场监管局根据市场监管总局移交线索，于2022年6月对福建爆破协会组织会员企业涉嫌达成垄断协议行为立案调查。经查，2019年12月至2021年12月，福建爆破协会通过策划、协调、召开一系列省际会议的形式，组织会员企业达成固定商品价格、限制商品销售数量的垄断协议，约定“两不增”(即跨省销售民爆物品不新增销售点、各企业跨合作省区销售的年销售量不超过2019年)“两不低”(即跨省销售价格要实现不低于2008年民用爆破器材出厂基准价格，数码电子雷管价格不低于15元/发)等事项。当事人的上述行为，违反修改前的《反垄断法》第十三条第一款第(一)项、第(二)项和第十六条规定。
民用爆破器材行业素有“能源工业的能源，基础工业的基础”之称，主要产品有工业炸药、工业雷管、工业导爆索等多个品种，产品广泛应用于煤炭、金属、非金属等矿山开采，公路、铁路、水利等基础设施建设。本案的查处有力保护了福建省民用爆破器材行业市场公平竞争秩序，维护了相关经营者利益和社会公共利益，也进一步提高了福建爆破协会及会员企业的竞争合规意识。
八、辽宁省市场监管局查处东北制药集团股份有限公司滥用市场支配地位案
On January 2023, 1, the Liaoning Provincial Market Supervision Bureau issued an administrative penalty decision against Northeast Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Northeast Pharmaceutical) for abusing its dominant market position, ordering Northeast Pharmaceutical to stop its illegal activities and imposing a fine of 18 million yuan on its 2018 domestic sales in China.
On July 2019, 7, the Liaoning Provincial Market Supervision Bureau opened a case for investigation against Northeast Pharmaceutical for suspected monopolistic behavior based on the clues handed over by the State Administration for Market Regulation and after preliminary verification. The commodity involved in this case is L-carnitine API, which is the main raw material for the production of L-carnitine preparations, which are mainly used to treat a series of complications caused by secondary carnitine deficiency in patients with chronic renal failure and long-term hemodialysis. From November 23 to June 2018, it abused its dominant market position and increased the sales price of L-carnitine API from 11,2019 yuan/kg to a maximum of 6,2500~8000,10000 yuan/kg, which significantly exceeded the cost increase in the same period, and was also significantly higher than the sales price of other L-carnitine API manufacturers, violating Article <>, paragraph <> (<>) of the Anti-Monopoly Law before the amendment ) paragraph.
L-carnitine preparation is a national medical insurance drug, and it is also the only life-saving drug for the rare disease of primary carnitine deficiency in the "First Rare Disease List" issued by the National Health Commission and other departments, and the key drug for three rare diseases: pentadiseptic disease type I., isovaleric acidemia and methylmalonic acidemia. The investigation and handling of this case has effectively safeguarded the fair competition order of the L-carnitine API market, and safeguarded the legitimate interests of downstream preparation manufacturers, the majority of patients and the public interest.
9. The Tianjin Municipal Commission for Market Regulation investigated and dealt with the case of abuse of market dominance by Tianjin Jinyao Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd
On March 2023, 3, the Tianjin Municipal Commission for Market Regulation issued an administrative penalty decision on the abuse of market dominance by Tianjin Jinyao Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tianjin Jinyao), ordered Tianjin Jinyao to stop its illegal behavior, and imposed a fine of 14.2019 million yuan on its 2 annual sales.
On September 2020, 9, the Tianjin Municipal Commission for Market Regulation opened an investigation into Tianjin Jinyao's suspected monopolistic behavior based on the clues assigned by the State Administration for Market Regulation. The commodity involved in this case is carmustine injection, which is an anti-tumor drug used to treat brain tumors, meningeal leukemia, malignant lymphoma and multiple myeloma. From June 24 to September 2017, Tianjin Jinyao abused its dominant market position and increased the price of carmustine injection beyond the normal range from 6~2020 yuan / unit to a maximum of 9 yuan / unit under the condition that the cost was basically stable, which undermined the market competition order, resulting in a shortage of carmustine injection, and a significant increase in the cost of medication for patients, violating the Anti-Monopoly Law before the amendment Article 100, paragraph 245 (a).
Carmustine injection is an essential drug and national medical insurance drug for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with malignant lymphoma, and has important value for the life and health of patients. The investigation and handling of this case has effectively safeguarded the fair competition order of the carmustine injection market, and at the same time safeguarded the interests of consumers and the social public interest.
10. The Jiangsu Provincial Market Supervision Bureau investigated and dealt with the case of Nanjing Zhongzheng City Gas Development Co., Ltd. abusing its dominant market position
On January 2023, 1, the Jiangsu Provincial Market Supervision Bureau issued an administrative penalty decision on the abuse of market dominance by Nanjing Zhongzheng City Gas Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Nanjing Zhongzheng), ordering Nanjing Zhongzheng to stop its illegal acts, confiscating 18.2956 million yuan of illegal gains, and imposing a fine of 31.2018 million yuan for 2% of its 2083 annual sales, with a total amount of 76.5040 million yuan.
Based on the report, the Jiangsu Provincial Market Supervision Bureau opened a case for investigation on April 2019, 4 against Nanjing China Gas for suspected monopolistic behavior. After investigation, the relevant market in this case was defined as the pipeline gas supply service market in Jiangbei area of Nanjing, Nanjing Zhongzheng has a dominant market position, and since 28, it has abused its dominant market position, and without legitimate reasons, when carrying out gas pipeline engineering installation business with developers of new residential areas, the purchase of value-added products such as gas insurance, gas alarms, gas appliances, and metal bellows pipes is a necessary link in the process of gas entry for developers of new residential communities, and the developers are forced to purchase the above-mentioned value-added products; Without justifiable reasons, charging unreasonable over-range engineering fees and non-resident gas pipeline installation fees against developers and non-resident users violates Article 2016.<>.<> of the Anti-Monopoly Law before the amendment.
As an important part of public utilities, the gas industry is closely related to the daily life of the people, and while providing safe, efficient and convenient gas supply services, it has become one of the most common areas of monopolistic behavior in recent years. The investigation and handling of this case effectively regulated the market competition order of the local city gas industry and safeguarded the interests of relevant operators and consumers.
11. The Market Supervision Bureau of Shandong Province investigated and dealt with the case of Huaneng Rizhao Thermal Power Co., Ltd. abusing its dominant market position
On April 2023, 4, the Shandong Provincial Market Supervision Bureau made an administrative penalty decision on Huaneng Rizhao Thermal Power Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Rizhao Thermal) for abusing its dominant market position, ordering Rizhao Thermal to stop its illegal acts and imposing a fine of 3.2019 million yuan of 1% of its 425 annual sales.
Based on the report, the Shandong Provincial Market Supervision Bureau opened an investigation on August 2020, 8 against Rizhao Thermal for suspected monopolistic behavior. After investigation, the relevant market in this case was defined as the urban public pipe network heating service market in the main urban area of Rizhao City, Shandong Province, and Rizhao Thermal Power had a dominant market position, and since 31, its abuse of market dominance has no legitimate reason, requiring the new residential development and construction unit to purchase the heat metering device it sells, otherwise it will not be accepted for heating; Without justifiable reasons, some enterprises and institutions within their heating scope changed from the original metered charges based on heat consumption to charging by area, while other similar units still charged according to heat metering, resulting in enterprises and institutions that changed to charging by area paying more heat supply fees, violating the provisions of Article 2019, paragraph <> (<>) and (<>) of the Anti-Monopoly Law before the amendment.
Urban heating service is a kind of public utility, which is closely related to social livelihood. The above behavior of Rizhao Thermal Power excludes and restricts the market competition of heat metering devices, making relevant enterprises and institutions bear more operating costs. The investigation and handling of this case effectively regulated illegal acts, maintained the competition order of the local urban public pipe network heating service market, and also safeguarded the interests of relevant enterprises and institutions and consumers.
12. The Gansu Provincial Market Supervision Bureau investigated and dealt with the case of Lanzhou Urban Management Commission abusing its administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition
On August 2021, 8, the Gansu Provincial Market Supervision Bureau opened an investigation into the Lanzhou Urban Management Commission for allegedly abusing administrative power to eliminate and restrict competition.
After investigation, on the grounds of signing a BOT contract with a bioenergy system co., LTD., the parties requested the relevant county and district governments and relevant units at lower levels to refuse administrative permits for other enterprises to engage in the collection and transportation of food waste, and required the sanitation departments of each district to urge all catering enterprises in their jurisdictions to sign a food waste collection and transportation agreement with a bioenergy system co., LTD. The parties did not strictly implement the fair competition review system, and issued the above-mentioned policies and measures involving the economic activities of market entities without fair competition review or in violation of the review standards.
The Gansu Provincial Market Supervision Bureau held that the above-mentioned acts of the parties abused their administrative power to exclude or restrict other qualified enterprises from participating in the competition in the local food waste collection, transportation and treatment service market, violated Article 39 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, and constituted an abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition.
During the investigation, the parties actively rectified and eliminated the adverse effects, formulated and issued the internal "Fair Competition Review Work System", published the "Announcement on the Revision and Repeal of Some Documents" on its portal, abolished or revised the policies and measures related to eliminating and restricting competition, and submitted a rectification report to the Gansu Provincial Market Supervision Bureau.
Food waste collection and transportation treatment belongs to the field of public utilities and is closely related to the lives of the masses. Through anti-monopoly law enforcement, this case promptly stopped and corrected the abuse of administrative power by administrative organs to restrict the purchase of and use of services provided by specific business operators to eliminate or restrict competition by obstructing administrative examination and approval, safeguarding fair competition and protecting the livelihood of the masses.
13. The Heilongjiang Provincial Bureau for Market Regulation investigated and dealt with the case of Harbin Urban Administration abusing its administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition
On September 2022, 9, the Heilongjiang Provincial Market Supervision Bureau opened a case for investigation into the Harbin Urban Administration for allegedly abusing its administrative power to eliminate and restrict competition.
After investigation, on April 2021, 4, the parties concerned issued the Notice on Printing and Distributing the Implementation Plan for the Standardized Management of Harbin Shared Bicycle Parking Order in the name of the Harbin Urban Management Commission, which clearly states: "The "Harbin Shared Bicycle Parking Order Standardized Management Implementation Plan" is hereby issued to you as the basis for organizing the bidding and parking order management of shared bicycles...". On April 8, 2021, the parties entrusted a third party to publish the "Harbin Shared Bicycle Placement Share Bidding (Bidding Announcement for the First Bidding Section, the Second Bidding Section and the Third Bidding Section) through the Provincial Public Resources Trading Network", and the project set up three bidding sections, including two bidding sections for bicycles and one bidding section for mopeds. The parties and the three Chinese bidders signed the "Standardized Parking Management Agreement for Shared Bicycles".
The Heilongjiang Provincial Bureau for Market Regulation held that the above-mentioned acts of the parties had no legal and regulatory basis, excluded and restricted other enterprises with corresponding qualifications and service capabilities from participating in the competition in the shared bicycle market in the region, deprived consumers of their right to make their own choices, violated Articles 39 and 45 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, and constituted an abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition.
During the investigation, the parties actively rectified, eliminated the adverse impact, abolished the relevant documents, and made announcements on the government website, and the relevant agreements were automatically terminated. The parties submitted a rectification report to the Heilongjiang Provincial Market Supervision Bureau, stating that they would strictly implement the fair competition review system, and all policy measures involving the economic activities of market entities must undergo fair competition review to prevent the elimination or restriction of competition.
In recent years, the rapid development of shared bicycles has better met the public's travel needs. The case reflects that the relevant government departments have failed to give full play to the role of the market mechanism in the management of the emerging sharing economy, and their ability to use market-oriented and rule-of-law means to solve industry management problems needs to be further improved. Through anti-monopoly law enforcement, the market order of fair competition in the shared bicycle market was effectively maintained, the interests of shared bicycle operators and the legitimate rights and interests of consumers were effectively protected, and the concept of fair competition of the administrative organs was enhanced.