Supplementary Provisions

This Act comes into effect as of the day specified by Cabinet Order within a period not exceeding one year from the date of promulgation; provided, however, that the provisions set forth in the following items come into effect as of the days specified in those items.

In the case where, before the day on which this Act comes into effect (hereinafter referred to as the "Effective Date"), with respect to one violation, a recommendation pursuant to Article 48, paragraph (1) or (2) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade prior to amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Former Act"), the grant of an opportunity to state opinions and submit evidence pursuant to Article 48-2, paragraph (4) of the Former Act, or the service of a transcript of the written decision to commence trial proceedings pursuant to Article 50, paragraph (2) of the Former Act has been made to all or part of the enterprise that committed the violation, or the trade association or its constituent enterprises (including, where a constituent enterprise performs an act for the benefit of another enterprise, that enterprise), the provisions then in force continue to govern the procedures for ordering measures necessary to eliminate the violation, the calculation of the amount of the surcharge and the requirements and procedures for ordering its payment, trial proceedings (excluding those pertaining to matters such as the attendance of a stenographer prescribed by Rules of the Japan Fair Trade Commission), procedures pertaining to an action to revoke a decision made through the trial proceedings, and other matters similar to these that are prescribed by Rules of the Japan Fair Trade Commission.

With regard to a violation for which one year has elapsed, at the time this Act comes into effect, since the day on which the act ceased without a recommendation pursuant to Article 48, paragraph (1) or (2) of the Former Act or the service of a transcript of the written decision to commence trial proceedings pursuant to Article 50, paragraph (2) of the Former Act having been made, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 7, paragraph (2) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade after amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "New Act") (including as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8-2, paragraph (2) and Article 20, paragraph (2) of the New Act; the same applies hereinafter in this Article), the measures prescribed in Article 7, paragraph (2) of the New Act cannot be ordered.

①Payment of a surcharge cannot be ordered for a violation prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1) of the New Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 8-3 of the New Act) or paragraph (2) of that Article (excluding one prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1) of the Former Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 8-3 of the Former Act)) that has already ceased before the Effective Date.

②With regard to a violation prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1) of the New Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 8-3 of the New Act) or paragraph (2) of that Article (limited to one prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1) of the Former Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 8-3 of the Former Act)) that has already ceased before the Effective Date, the provisions then in force continue to govern the calculation of the amount of the surcharge (excluding the reduction pursuant to Article 7-2, paragraphs (8) and (9) of the New Act) in the case where notification is given pursuant to Article 49, paragraph (5) of the New Act as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 50, paragraph (6) of the New Act. In this case, with regard to the application of the proviso to Article 7-2, paragraph (1) of the New Act, the phrase "one million yen" in the proviso to that paragraph is deemed to be replaced with "five hundred thousand yen".

①With regard to a violation prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1) (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 8-3) or paragraph (2) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade after amendment by the Act Partially Amending the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Act No. 100 of 2013) (hereinafter referred to as the "New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization" in this Article and Articles 7 and 8 of the Supplementary Provisions) (excluding one prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1) of the Former Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 8-3 of the Former Act)), in the case where notification is given pursuant to Article 50, paragraph (1) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 62, paragraph (4) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and that violation began before January 4, 2006 and ceased on or after that date, payment of a surcharge cannot be ordered for the part of that violation relating to the period before that date.

②With regard to a violation prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 8-3 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization) or paragraph (2) of that Article (limited to one prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1) of the Former Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 8-3 of the Former Act)), in the case where notification is given pursuant to Article 50, paragraph (1) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 62, paragraph (4) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and that violation began before January 4, 2006 and ceased on or after that date, the provisions then in force continue to govern the calculation of the amount of the surcharge (limited to the rate by which the amount of sales is multiplied) for the part of that violation relating to the period before that date.

③With regard to the application of Article 7-2, paragraph (1) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 8-3 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization) in the case referred to in the preceding paragraph, the phrase "the period until the day on which the business activities in implementing that act cease (the period" in the main clause of Article 7-2, paragraph (1) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization is deemed to be replaced with "the period obtained by adding together the period until the day preceding January 4, 2006 and the period from January 4, 2006 until the day on which the business activities in implementing that act cease (the period so added together".

④With regard to the application of Article 7-2, paragraph (19), main clause and Article 63, paragraph (1), main clause of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization in the case referred to in paragraph (2), the phrase "that amount" in these provisions is deemed to be replaced with "the portion of that amount corresponding to the part of the violation relating to the period on or after January 4, 2006", and the phrase "the amount after deduction" is deemed to be replaced with "the total of the amount after deduction (or zero yen, where the amount of that corresponding portion is less than one-half of the amount of the fine) and the amount of the portion corresponding to the part of the violation relating to the period before that date".

⑤With regard to the application of the proviso to Article 7-2, paragraph (19) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization in the case referred to in paragraph (2), the phrase "if the amount calculated pursuant to paragraph (1), paragraphs (4) through (9), paragraph (11), or paragraph (12) does not exceed the amount equivalent to one-half of the amount of the fine, or if the amount after that deduction" in the proviso to Article 7-2, paragraph (19) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization is deemed to be replaced with "the total amount prescribed in the main clause of this paragraph as applied following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 5, paragraph (4) of the Supplementary Provisions of the Act Partially Amending the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Act No. 35 of 2005)".

⑥With regard to the application of the proviso to Article 63, paragraph (1) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization in the case referred to in paragraph (2), the phrase "the amount of the surcharge in the payment order does not exceed the amount equivalent to one-half of the amount of the fine or if the amount after the modification" in the proviso to Article 63, paragraph (1) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization is deemed to be replaced with "the total amount prescribed in the main clause of this paragraph as applied following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 5, paragraph (4) of the Supplementary Provisions of the Act Partially Amending the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Act No. 35 of 2005)".

①If a decision pursuant to Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3, or Article 54, paragraph (1) or (2) of the Former Act (excluding one ordering the measures prescribed in Article 8-4, paragraph (1) of the Former Act) has become final and binding, and a claim for damages is made on or after the Effective Date against the person who received the decision, the decision is deemed to be a cease and desist order that has become final and binding under the provisions of the New Act, and Article 26 of the New Act applies.

②If the decision prescribed in the preceding paragraph has not been made and a decision pursuant to Article 54-2, paragraph (1) of the Former Act (excluding one against a constituent enterprise of a trade association that committed an act in violation of Article 8, paragraph (1), item (i) or (ii) of the Former Act) has become final and binding, and a claim for damages is made on or after the Effective Date against the person who received the decision, the decision is deemed to be a payment order that has become final and binding under the provisions of the New Act, and Article 26 of the New Act applies.

③If a decision pursuant to Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3, or Article 54, paragraph (1) or (2) of the Former Act (excluding one ordering the measures prescribed in Article 8-4, paragraph (1) of the Former Act) has become final and binding, and the person who received the decision does not comply with it on or after January 4, 2006, the decision is deemed to be a cease and desist order that has become final and binding under the provisions of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (hereinafter referred to as the "Antimonopoly Act"), and Article 90, item (iii), Article 92, Article 95, paragraph (1), items (ii) and (iv) (limited to the part pertaining to Article 90, item (iii) of the Antimonopoly Act), paragraph (2), items (ii) and (iv) (limited to the part pertaining to Article 90, item (iii) of the Antimonopoly Act), and paragraph (5), Article 95-2, and Article 95-3 of the Antimonopoly Act apply.

If a person who received a decision pursuant to Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3, or Article 54, paragraph (1) or (2) of the Former Act (excluding one ordering the measures prescribed in Article 8-4, paragraph (1) of the Former Act) is in violation of it on or after January 4, 2006, the decision is deemed to be a cease and desist order under the provisions of the Antimonopoly Act, and Article 97 of the Antimonopoly Act applies.

In addition to what is provided for in the preceding three Articles, dispositions, procedures, or other acts carried out pursuant to the provisions of the Former Act are deemed to have been carried out pursuant to the corresponding provisions of the New Act, as specified by Rules of the Japan Fair Trade Commission.

With regard to the jurisdiction of the first instance over an action that is actually pending before the Tokyo High Court at the time this Act comes into effect and that pertains to the crimes under Articles 89 through 91 of the Former Act, the provisions then in force continue to govern.

With regard to the application of penal provisions to acts committed before this Act (or, for the amending provisions set forth in Article 1, item (i) of the Supplementary Provisions, those amending provisions) comes into effect, the provisions then in force continue to govern.

In addition to what is provided for in Article 2 through the preceding Article of the Supplementary Provisions, transitional measures necessary for the enforcement of this Act are specified by Cabinet Order.

The government is to, within two years after this Act comes into effect, examine the desirable form of the system relating to surcharges, the desirable form of the procedures for ordering measures necessary to eliminate violations, the desirable form of trial proceedings, etc., taking into account the state of enforcement of the New Act, changes in socioeconomic conditions, etc., and take required measures based on the results.