Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade

When a court has issued a ruling under Article 92, paragraph (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to the case record for an action in which a protective order has been issued (excluding an action in which all the protective orders have been rescinded), if a party requests to conduct an inspection, etc. of the portion of the record that includes the secret provided for in the paragraph, and the person who makes the request was not subject to a protective order in the action, immediately after the request is made, the court clerk must notify the party that filed the petition under the paragraph (excluding the requestor; the same applies in paragraph (3)) of the fact that the request was made.

In cases under the preceding paragraph, the court clerk must not allow the party who performed the procedure for the request under the paragraph to conduct an inspection, etc. of the portion of the record that represents the secret until two weeks have passed since the date of the request (if a petition for a protective order against the person who performed the procedure for the request was filed on or before the date, until the date on which the decision on the petition becomes final and binding).

The provisions of the preceding two paragraphs do not apply if all parties who filed a petition under Article 92, paragraph (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure consent to allow the party who made the request under paragraph (1) to conduct an inspection, etc. of the portion of the record that represents the secret.

Whenever an action for damages under the provisions of Article 25 has been filed, the court may ask for the opinion of the Japan Fair Trade Commission with respect to the amount of damages caused by the violations as provided in the Article.

If a claim for damages under the provisions of Article 25 is made in court proceedings for the purpose of a set-off, the provisions of the preceding paragraph apply mutatis mutandis.

When a court listed in one of the following items has jurisdiction over an action to suspend or prevent an infringement under the provisions of Article 24 pursuant to the provisions of Articles 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the action may also be filed with the court set forth in the relevant item:

a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Tokyo High Court (excluding Tokyo District Court), Osaka District Court, Nagoya District Court, Hiroshima District Court, Fukuoka District Court, Sendai District Court, Sapporo District Court, or Takamatsu District Court: Tokyo District Court;

a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Osaka High Court (excluding Osaka District Court): Tokyo District Court or Osaka District Court;

a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Nagoya High Court (excluding Nagoya District Court): Tokyo District Court or Nagoya District Court;

a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Hiroshima High Court (excluding Hiroshima District Court): Tokyo District Court or Hiroshima District Court;

a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Fukuoka High Court (excluding Fukuoka District Court): Tokyo District Court or Fukuoka District Court;

a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Sendai High Court (excluding Sendai District Court): Tokyo District Court or Sendai District Court;

a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Sapporo High Court (excluding Sapporo District Court): Tokyo District Court or Sapporo District Court; or

a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Takamatsu High Court (excluding the Takamatsu District Court): Tokyo District Court or Takamatsu District Court.

With respect to the application of the provisions of Article 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a case in which several claims are made in one action, including a claim under the provisions of Article 24 of this Act, the term "Article 4 through the preceding Article (excluding Article 6, paragraph (3))" in Article 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is deemed to be replaced with "Article 4 through the preceding Article (excluding Article 6, paragraph (3)), and Article 84-2, paragraph (1) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade".

The jurisdiction of the first instance over any action involving a crime provided for in Articles 89 through 91 lies in the district courts.

If a court listed in one of the items under Article 84-2, paragraph (1) has jurisdiction over a case connected with crimes provided in the preceding Article pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. 131 of 1948), the court prescribed in the relevant item also has jurisdiction over the case.

Any following action and case is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tokyo District Court:

action for the judicial review of an administrative disposition under Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act in connection with the cease and desist order, etc.; and

any case provided for in Article 70-4, paragraph (1), Article 70-5, paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 97, and Article 98.

The jurisdiction of the first instance over any actions concerning compensation for damages pursuant to the provisions of Article 25 is to lie with the Tokyo District Court.

The Tokyo District Court is to conduct a proceeding and make a judicial decision by a panel consisting of three judges for action and case provided for in Article 85, as well as actions provided for in the preceding Article.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the Tokyo District Court, with regard to the action and case in the preceding paragraph, may make a ruling by the panel of five judges who are to conduct a proceeding and make a judicial decision.

In the case of the preceding paragraph, the panel may not contain three or more assistant judges simultaneously, and no assistant judge may serve as the presiding judge.

With regard to the case subject to appeal to the Tokyo High Court against a final judgment made by the Tokyo District Court for the action or suit set forth in Article 85, item (i) or the action or suit pursuant to Article 85-2 or the case subject to appeal to the Tokyo High Court against a ruling made by the Tokyo District Court for the case as set forth in Article 85, item (ii), in the Tokyo High Court, a panel may make a ruling that the panel of five judges conducts a proceeding and make a judicial decision on that case.

If an action to suspend or prevent an infringement pursuant to the provisions of Article 24 has been filed, and an action pursuant to the Article in connection with the same or similar acts are pending before another court, when the court finds it proper in consideration of the addresses or locations of the parties, addresses of witnesses to be examined, the commonality of issues or evidence, and any other circumstances, the court may transfer the case in whole or in part to the relevant other court or other courts having jurisdiction over the relevant action pursuant to the provisions of Article 84-2, paragraph (1), upon petition or by the court's own authority.

With respect to an action for the judicial review of an administrative disposition under Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act in connection with a cease and desist order, etc., the provisions of Article 6 of the Act on the Authority of the Minister of Justice over Suits Relating to the Interests of the State (Act No. 194 of 1947) do not apply.