According to the official information of the Supreme People's Court, the people's courts maintain fair competition order by adjudicating monopoly cases according to law, and provide a solid judicial guarantee for the construction of a unified national market. In order to give full play to the exemplary and leading role of judicial decisions, the Supreme People's Court issued five typical anti-monopoly cases on September 10 during the China Fair Competition Policy Publicity Week in 2025. Including the "Horizontal Monopoly Agreement of the Cement Association" anti-monopoly administrative penalty case. Anti-monopoly Administrative Penalty Case of
"Horizontal Monopoly Agreement of Cement Association" — — Determination
of Monopolistic Behavior of Operators Organized by Industry Associations [Case No.] Supreme People's Court (2024) Supreme Law Zhixing Zhong No.148, Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2023) Jing 73 Xing Chu No.6605 [Anti-monopoly Administrative Penalty and Administrative Reconsideration Bill of a Provincial Cement Association, a Provincial Market Supervision and Administration Bureau and the State Administration of Market Supervision and Administration]
[Basic facts] a Provincial Cement Association (hereinafter referred to as the Cement Association) is an approved industry association. In May 2019, a provincial market supervision and administration Bureau received a report that the cement association organized a joint price increase for enterprises in the industry. After investigation, a provincial market supervision and administration Bureau made an administrative penalty decision on June 28, 2022, which found that the cement association violated the relevant provisions of the anti-monopoly law, organized and promoted 13 cement enterprises in a region of a province to reach a monopoly agreement to raise the price of cement products for many times, and coordinated the implementation of the enterprises involved. Therefore, a provincial market supervision and administration ordered the cement association to stop the illegal activities and imposed a fine of 500000 yuan. The Cement Association refused to accept and applied for administrative reconsideration. The State Administration of Market Supervision and Administration shall maintain it after reconsideration. The Cement Association filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the revocation of the administrative penalty decision and the administrative reconsideration decision. The court of first instance decided to reject the claim of the Cement Association. The cement association refused to accept and appealed. The second instance of the Supreme
People's Court held that the Cement Association set up a communication and coordination platform by setting up Wechat Groups, organizing gatherings and industry conferences, and organized and promoted major local cement enterprises to communicate and exchange on peak staggering production, cement market situation, cement sales price and other issues for many times, thus forming a consensus on not to compete in price and take price protection measures. The cement enterprises involved in the case basically adjusted the cement price according to the time and range of price increase negotiated in the Wechat group or gathering. In the process of reaching and implementing the horizontal monopoly agreement involved in the case, the cement association actively planned, organized, coordinated and promoted the conclusion and implementation of the agreement with the goal of "staggering peak production and maintaining cement prices", and played a leading role in the conclusion and implementation of the monopoly agreement involved in the case. Therefore, it should be recognized that the cement association has violated the provisions of the Anti-monopoly Law that the trade association shall not organize the operators of the industry to engage in monopolistic acts. The defendant's penalty decision and the defendant's reconsideration decision have sufficient factual basis for the determination of the cement association's illegal acts, and the amount of fines determined is within the range of administrative penalties prescribed by law, compatible with the nature, duration and degree of social harm of the cement association's illegal acts, and in line with the principle of excessive punishment. Therefore, the final judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[Typical significance] The judgment of this case clarifies that if a trade association plays a decisive or leading role in the conclusion or implementation of a monopoly agreement through its formation, convening, leadership, planning, manipulation, command and initiation, it shall be recognized as a trade association prohibited by the Anti-monopoly Law to organize the operators of the industry to engage in monopolistic acts. The judgment of this case is of positive significance for correctly delimiting the behavior boundary of trade associations and standardizing the industry guidance and service of trade associations according to law.
浙公网安备33010802003254号