Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade

When a party who has received a notice pursuant to the provisions of the preceding Article intends to formulate and conduct measures that are necessary in order to ensure that the act that was the reason for suspicion has been ceased, it may create a plan (hereinafter referred to as a "plan for measures to ensure cessation" in this Article and Article 48-9) related to the measures that it intends to conduct (hereinafter referred to as "measures to ensure cessation" in this Article through Article 48-9), submit that plan to the Japan Fair Trade Commission within sixty days after the relevant notice, and apply for approval, pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of the Japan Fair Trade Commission.

The plan for measures to ensure cessation must contain the following:

the content of the measures to ensure cessation;

the deadline for conducting the measures to ensure cessation; and

other matters specified by the Rules of the Japan Fair Trade Commission.

When there has been an application for approval pursuant to the provisions of Article 48-7, paragraph (1), the Japan Fair Trade Commission is to approve the plan if the Japan Fair Trade Commission finds that the plan for measures to ensure cessation conforms to both of the following items:

the measures to ensure cessation are sufficient for ensuring that the act that was the reason for the suspicion has been ceased; and

the measures to ensure cessation are expected to be reliably conducted.

The provisions of Article 48-3, paragraph (4) and (5) apply mutatis mutandis to the approval pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

When there has been an application for approval pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1), the Japan Fair Trade Commission must render a decision to dismiss it if the Japan Fair Trade Commission finds that the plan for measures to ensure cessation does not conform to any of the items of paragraph (3).

The provisions of Article 48-3, paragraphs (4) and (5) apply mutatis mutandis to a decision pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph. In this case, the term "statement of approval" in Article 48-3, paragraphs (4) and (5) is deemed to be replaced with "statement of decision".

When a party that has received the approval of paragraph (3) intends to change the plan for measures to ensure cessation related to that approval, it must receive approval by the Japan Fair Trade Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of the Japan Fair Trade Commission.

The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (6) apply mutatis mutandis to approval for changes pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The provisions of Article 7, paragraphs (1) and (2) (including when these are applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8-2, paragraph (2) and Article 20, paragraph (2)), Article 7-2, paragraph (1) (including when these are applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8-3 following the deemed replacement of terms), Article 7-9, paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 8-2, paragraphs (1) and (3), Article 20, paragraph (1), and Article 20-2 through Article 20-6 do not apply for the act that was the reason for the suspicion related to that approval and the act related to the measures to ensure cessation, if the Japan Fair Trade Commission gave the approval of Article 48-7, paragraph (3) (including approval for changes pursuant to the provisions of Article 48-7, paragraph (7); the same applies in the following Article, Article 65, Article 68, paragraph (2) and Article 76, paragraph (2)) provided, however, that this does not apply if there is a decision pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) of the following Article.

When either of the following items applies, the Japan Fair Trade Commission must render a decision to rescind the approval of Article 48-7, paragraph (3).

when the Japan Fair Trade Commission recognizes that the measures to ensure cessation are not being conducted according to the plan for measures to ensure cessation that received the approval of Article 48-7, paragraph (3); or

when it has been revealed that the party that received the approval of Article 48-7, paragraph (3) received that approval based on false or wrongful facts.

The provisions of Article 48-3, paragraphs (4) and (5) apply mutatis mutandis to a decision pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph. In this case, the term "statement of approval" in Article 48-3, paragraphs (4) and (5) is deemed to be replaced with "statement of decision".

When there has been rescission of the approval of Article 48-7, paragraph (3) pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1), when that rescission was on or after the date two years before the expiration date of the period stipulated in proviso to Article 7, paragraph (2) (including when these are applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8-2, paragraph (2) and Article 20, paragraph (2); the same applies hereinafter in this paragraph), an order pursuant to the provisions of Article 7, paragraph (2) (including when these are applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8-2, paragraph (2) and Article 20, paragraph (2)) or Article 8-2, paragraph (3) may be issued for the act that was the reason for the suspicion related to that approval, notwithstanding the provisions of proviso to Article 7, paragraph (2), also within the two-year period from the date of the decision for that rescission.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph apply mutatis mutandis to an order pursuant to the provisions of Article 7-2, paragraph (1) (including when applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 8-3), Article 7-9, paragraph (1) or (2), or Articles 20-2 through 20-6. In this case, the phrase "proviso to Article 7, paragraph (2) (including when these are applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8-2, paragraph (2) and Article 20, paragraph (2)" in the preceding paragraph is deemed to be replaced with "Article 7-8, paragraph (6) (including when these are applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 7-9, paragraph (3) and Article 8-3 and when they are applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 7-9, paragraph (4) and Article 20-7", and the phrase "the provisions of proviso to Article 7, paragraph (2)" with "the provisions of Article 7-8, paragraph (6)".

If the Japan Fair Trade Commission seeks to issue an order pursuant to the provisions of Article 7, paragraph (1) or (2) (including when they are applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8-2, paragraph (2) and Article 20, paragraph (2)); Article 8-2, paragraph (1) or (3); Article 17-2; or Article 20, paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as a "cease and desist order"), it must conduct a hearing of opinions with the would-be addressee of the cease and desist order.

In a hearing set forth in the preceding Article, the Japan Fair Trade Commission must notify the would-be addressee of the cease and desist order of the following matters in writing, by a reasonable period of time prior to the date of hearing:

the expected contents of the cease and desist order;

the facts found by the Japan Fair Trade Commission, and the application of laws and regulations thereto;

the date and place of hearing; and

the name and location of the organization which has jurisdiction over affairs relating to hearing.

The written notice set forth in the preceding paragraph must inform the following matters:

that the would-be addressee of the cease and desist order may state their opinions and submit evidence on the date of hearing or submit a written statement and evidence instead of appearance on the date of hearing; and

that the would-be addressee of the cease and desist order, may request inspection and a copy of evidence pursuant to the provisions of Article 52 until the conclusion of the hearing.

The person who has received the notice set forth in paragraph (1) of the preceding Article (hereinafter referred to as the "party" in this Section) may appoint agents.

Each agent may perform any act relating to a hearing on behalf of the party.

Between the time when notice of a hearing is given pursuant to Article 50, paragraph (1) and the time when the hearing is concluded, the party may submit a request to the Japan Fair Trade Commission to inspect or copy the evidence proving the facts found by the Japan Fair Trade Commission with respect to the case for hearing (as for copy, only limited to evidence prescribed by the Rules of the Japan Fair Trade Commission as one that was submitted by the relevant party or its employees or that records the statements of the relevant party or its employees; hereinafter the same applies in this Article). In this case, the Japan Fair Trade Commission may not refuse the inspection or copy unless this is likely to infringe on the interests of a third party or unless there are any other justifiable grounds.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph do not preclude the party from further requesting inspection or copy of the evidence, which becomes necessary in the course of the procedures for hearing.

The Japan Fair Trade Commission may designate the date, time and place for inspection or copy set forth in the preceding two paragraphs.

The procedures for hearing is presided by the staff member designated by the Japan Fair Trade Commission for each case (hereinafter referred to as the "designated staff member").

The Japan Fair Trade Commission may not designate any staff member who performed the duties of an investigator with respect to the case pursuant to the preceding paragraph and any other staff members who conducted the administrative affairs pertaining to investigations into the relevant case as the presiding staff member for hearing.

The designated staff member must have the investigators designated pursuant to Article 47, paragraph (2) with respect to the case for which the procedures for hearing must be taken and any other staff members who conducted the administrative affairs pertaining to investigations into the relevant case (in the following paragraph and paragraph (3), and Article 56, paragraph (1), referred to as the "investigators, etc.") explain to the party appearing on the date of hearing the expected content of the cease and desist order, the facts found by the Japan Fair Trade Commission and major evidence among those provided for Article 52, paragraph (1), and the application of laws and regulations to the facts found by the Japan Fair Trade Commission at the outset of the first date of the hearing.

The party may appear on the date of hearing, state their opinions and submit evidence and also address questions to the investigators, etc. with the permission of the designated staff member.

When the designated staff member finds it necessary on the date of hearing, the designated staff member may address questions to parties, call upon them to state their opinions or submit evidence or request explanation from the investigators, etc.

The proceedings on the date of hearing is not open to the public.

The party may submit written statements and evidence to a designated staff member on or before the date of hearing instead of appearing on the date of hearing.

The designated staff member may assign a date for continuation when it is found necessary to continue the hearing as a result of the statement of opinions, submission of evidence, and questions by the party, and explanation by the investigators, etc., (in Article 58, paragraphs (1) and (2), referred to as the "statements, etc. by the party").

In the case referred to in the preceding paragraph, the party must be given, in advance, notice in writing of the date and the location of the next hearing provided, however, that it would be sufficient to notify the party who appeared on the date of hearing of the above matters which is made on the date of hearing.