最高人民法院于2026年9月10日发布了6件反垄断典型案例1。这些案例涵盖滥用市场支配地位、差别待遇、横向垄断协议、不公平高价、行政指导等反垄断法重点问题1，系统阐释了反垄断法的适用规则，明确了市场支配地位的认定、限定交易行为的认定、垄断协议的民事处理、短期价格波动的规制边界、刑事罚金与行政罚款的并行适用等原则，旨在维护公平竞争市场秩序、保障消费者权益1。
在案例涉及的具体违法行为认定中，某农产品公司因迫使商户"二选一"被认定构成限定交易，应向谭某赔偿超额收取的交易服务费损失408195元、经营损失10万元及律师费6.2万元1。某污水处理公司仅因身份不同而向某五金公司设置不同交易条件，构成差别待遇，被判赔偿1万元1。某县四家机动车检测机构的联营合作协议被认定为横向垄断协议而整体无效1。
法院在适用中也明确了若干原则性边界：短期价格波动一般不构成不公平高价，需综合评估定价机制的合理性及透明度1；反垄断守法义务属于行政指导，不属于行政复议受案范围1；强迫交易罪罚金一般不影响反垄断行政罚款，刑事罚金与反垄断行政罚款一般可以并行适用1。
The Supreme People's Court released six representative antitrust cases on September 10, 2026, addressing key legal issues under the Antitrust Law. 1 These cases systematically elucidate the application of antitrust regulations and establish precedent on critical enforcement matters including the recognition of market dominance, identification of restrictive trading practices, civil treatment of monopoly agreements, regulatory boundaries for price fluctuations, and concurrent application of criminal penalties and administrative fines. 1
Among the six cases, one involved an agricultural products company that forced merchants into an exclusive dealing arrangement, which was found to constitute unlawful restriction of trade; the company was ordered to compensate the affected merchant 408,195 yuan for excessive service fees, 100,000 yuan for business losses, and 62,000 yuan in attorney fees. 1 Another case addressed differential pricing based solely on identity differences, where a wastewater treatment company applied different fee standards to different customers; it was required to pay 10,000 yuan in damages. 1 A third case identified a joint operation agreement among four vehicle inspection institutions in a county as a horizontal monopoly agreement and rendered it entirely invalid after discovery during civil proceedings. 1
The court also clarified that short-term price fluctuations generally do not constitute unfair pricing and require comprehensive evaluation of the rationality and transparency of pricing mechanisms. 1 Additionally, the cases established that administrative guidance regarding antitrust compliance obligations falls outside the scope of administrative reconsideration review. 1 Finally, the court determined that criminal penalties for forced trading offenses generally do not preclude concurrent application of antitrust administrative fines. 1
评论
还没有评论，欢迎留下第一条。