Supplementary Provisions, Article 9
第九条
In the application of Article 20-2 of the New Antimonopoly Act, where that enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to a violation prescribed in that Article (meaning the investigation start date prescribed in Article 18-2, paragraph (2) of the New Antimonopoly Act; the same applies hereinafter in this Article), received a decision under Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3 or Article 54 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (i) of the Antimonopoly Act) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in that item), received an order under Article 20 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to where that order has become final and binding) or received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), or has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to an act falling under that item), received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), that decision or order is deemed to be an order under Article 20-2 of the New Antimonopoly Act that has become final and binding. The same applies to the application of Article 20-2 of the New Antimonopoly Act to that enterprise where a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise (limited to one that was a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise on the day it received that decision or order) has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received that decision or order.
新独占禁止法第二十条の二の規定の適用については、当該事業者が、同条に規定する違反行為に係る事件についての調査開始日（新独占禁止法第十八条の二第二項に規定する調査開始日をいう。以下この条において同じ。）から遡り十年以内に、平成十七年改正前独占禁止法第十九条の規定に違反する行為（独占禁止法第二条第九項第一号に規定する行為に相当するものに限る。）について平成十七年改正前独占禁止法第四十八条第四項、第五十三条の三若しくは第五十四条の規定による審決を受けたことがあるとき（当該審決が確定している場合に限る。）、平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法第十九条の規定に違反する行為（同号に規定する行為に相当するものに限る。）について平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法第二十条の規定による命令を受けたことがあるとき（当該命令が確定している場合に限る。）、若しくは平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法第六十六条第四項の規定による審決（原処分の全部を取り消す場合のものに限る。）を受けたことがあるとき（当該審決が確定している場合に限る。）、又は平成二十五年改正前独占禁止法第十九条の規定に違反する行為（同号に該当するものに限る。）について平成二十五年改正前独占禁止法第六十六条第四項の規定による審決（原処分の全部を取り消す場合のものに限る。）を受けたことがあるとき（当該審決が確定している場合に限る。）は、当該審決又は命令を新独占禁止法第二十条の二の規定による命令であって確定しているものとみなす。当該事業者の完全子会社（当該審決又は命令を受けた日において当該事業者の完全子会社である場合に限る。）が、当該違反行為に係る事件についての調査開始日から遡り十年以内に、当該審決又は命令を受けた場合における、当該事業者についての同条の規定の適用についても、同様とする。
In the application of Article 20-3 of the New Antimonopoly Act, where that enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to a violation prescribed in that Article, received a decision under Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3 or Article 54 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (ii) of the Antimonopoly Act) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in that item), received an order under Article 20 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to where that order has become final and binding) or received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), or has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to an act falling under that item), received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), that decision or order is deemed to be an order under Article 20-3 of the New Antimonopoly Act that has become final and binding. The same applies to the application of Article 20-3 of the New Antimonopoly Act to that enterprise where a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise (limited to one that was a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise on the day it received that decision or order) has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received that decision or order.
新独占禁止法第二十条の三の規定の適用については、当該事業者が、同条に規定する違反行為に係る事件についての調査開始日から遡り十年以内に、平成十七年改正前独占禁止法第十九条の規定に違反する行為（独占禁止法第二条第九項第二号に規定する行為に相当するものに限る。）について平成十七年改正前独占禁止法第四十八条第四項、第五十三条の三若しくは第五十四条の規定による審決を受けたことがあるとき（当該審決が確定している場合に限る。）、平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法第十九条の規定に違反する行為（同号に規定する行為に相当するものに限る。）について平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法第二十条の規定による命令を受けたことがあるとき（当該命令が確定している場合に限る。）、若しくは平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法第六十六条第四項の規定による審決（原処分の全部を取り消す場合のものに限る。）を受けたことがあるとき（当該審決が確定している場合に限る。）、又は平成二十五年改正前独占禁止法第十九条の規定に違反する行為（同号に該当するものに限る。）について平成二十五年改正前独占禁止法第六十六条第四項の規定による審決（原処分の全部を取り消す場合のものに限る。）を受けたことがあるとき（当該審決が確定している場合に限る。）は、当該審決又は命令を新独占禁止法第二十条の三の規定による命令であって確定しているものとみなす。当該事業者の完全子会社（当該審決又は命令を受けた日において当該事業者の完全子会社である場合に限る。）が、当該違反行為に係る事件についての調査開始日から遡り十年以内に、当該審決又は命令を受けた場合における、当該事業者についての同条の規定の適用についても、同様とする。
In the application of Article 20-4 of the New Antimonopoly Act, where that enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to a violation prescribed in that Article, received a decision under Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3 or Article 54 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (iii) of the Antimonopoly Act) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in that item), received an order under Article 20 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to where that order has become final and binding) or received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), or has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to an act falling under that item), received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), that decision or order is deemed to be an order under Article 20-4 of the New Antimonopoly Act that has become final and binding. The same applies to the application of Article 20-4 of the New Antimonopoly Act to that enterprise where a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise (limited to one that was a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise on the day it received that decision or order) has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received that decision or order.
新独占禁止法第二十条の四の規定の適用については、当該事業者が、同条に規定する違反行為に係る事件についての調査開始日から遡り十年以内に、平成十七年改正前独占禁止法第十九条の規定に違反する行為（独占禁止法第二条第九項第三号に規定する行為に相当するものに限る。）について平成十七年改正前独占禁止法第四十八条第四項、第五十三条の三若しくは第五十四条の規定による審決を受けたことがあるとき（当該審決が確定している場合に限る。）、平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法第十九条の規定に違反する行為（同号に規定する行為に相当するものに限る。）について平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法第二十条の規定による命令を受けたことがあるとき（当該命令が確定している場合に限る。）、若しくは平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法第六十六条第四項の規定による審決（原処分の全部を取り消す場合のものに限る。）を受けたことがあるとき（当該審決が確定している場合に限る。）、又は平成二十五年改正前独占禁止法第十九条の規定に違反する行為（同号に該当するものに限る。）について平成二十五年改正前独占禁止法第六十六条第四項の規定による審決（原処分の全部を取り消す場合のものに限る。）を受けたことがあるとき（当該審決が確定している場合に限る。）は、当該審決又は命令を新独占禁止法第二十条の四の規定による命令であって確定しているものとみなす。当該事業者の完全子会社（当該審決又は命令を受けた日において当該事業者の完全子会社である場合に限る。）が、当該違反行為に係る事件についての調査開始日から遡り十年以内に、当該審決又は命令を受けた場合における、当該事業者についての同条の規定の適用についても、同様とする。
In the application of Article 20-5 of the New Antimonopoly Act, where that enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to a violation prescribed in that Article, received a decision under Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3 or Article 54 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (iv) of the Antimonopoly Act) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in that item), received an order under Article 20 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to where that order has become final and binding) or received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), or has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to an act falling under that item), received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), that decision or order is deemed to be an order under Article 20-5 of the New Antimonopoly Act that has become final and binding. The same applies to the application of Article 20-5 of the New Antimonopoly Act to that enterprise where a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise (limited to one that was a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise on the day it received that decision or order) has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received that decision or order.
新独占禁止法第二十条の五の規定の適用については、当該事業者が、同条に規定する違反行為に係る事件についての調査開始日から遡り十年以内に、平成十七年改正前独占禁止法第十九条の規定に違反する行為（独占禁止法第二条第九項第四号に規定する行為に相当するものに限る。）について平成十七年改正前独占禁止法第四十八条第四項、第五十三条の三若しくは第五十四条の規定による審決を受けたことがあるとき（当該審決が確定している場合に限る。）、平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法第十九条の規定に違反する行為（同号に規定する行為に相当するものに限る。）について平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法第二十条の規定による命令を受けたことがあるとき（当該命令が確定している場合に限る。）、若しくは平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法第六十六条第四項の規定による審決（原処分の全部を取り消す場合のものに限る。）を受けたことがあるとき（当該審決が確定している場合に限る。）、又は平成二十五年改正前独占禁止法第十九条の規定に違反する行為（同号に該当するものに限る。）について平成二十五年改正前独占禁止法第六十六条第四項の規定による審決（原処分の全部を取り消す場合のものに限る。）を受けたことがあるとき（当該審決が確定している場合に限る。）は、当該審決又は命令を新独占禁止法第二十条の五の規定による命令であって確定しているものとみなす。当該事業者の完全子会社（当該審決又は命令を受けた日において当該事業者の完全子会社である場合に限る。）が、当該違反行為に係る事件についての調査開始日から遡り十年以内に、当該審決又は命令を受けた場合における、当該事業者についての同条の規定の適用についても、同様とする。
enterprise
「事業者」
Anyone who carries on a commercial, industrial, financial or other business; an officer, employee, agent or other person acting for the benefit of an enterprise is also treated as one for the purposes of Article 2, paragraph (2) and Chapter 3 (trade associations).
Defined inArticle 2, paragraph (1)· applies throughout the law
Antimonopoly Actmachine translation
「独占禁止法」
Short name that the supplementary provisions (附則) of amending Acts use for the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Act No. 54 of 1947) itself.
Short name set inSupplementary Provisions, Article 1, paragraph (1), item (i)
New Antimonopoly Actmachine translation
「新独占禁止法」
This Act as amended by Article 2 of Act No. 45 of 2019.
Short name set inSupplementary Provisions, Article 3, paragraph (1)
wholly owned subsidiary companymachine translation
「完全子会社」
In Articles 8 and 9 of the supplementary provisions (附則) of Act No. 45 of 2019, a wholly owned subsidiary company as defined in Article 2-2, paragraph (3) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade as amended by that Act.
Defined inSupplementary Provisions, Article 8, paragraph (1)· applies only in this article and in Supplementary Provisions, Article 9
Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendmentmachine translation
「平成十七年改正前独占禁止法」
The Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade as it stood before the Act Partially Amending the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Act No. 35 of 2005) amended it, as Articles 8 and 9 of the supplementary provisions (附則) of Act No. 45 of 2019 name it.
Short name set inSupplementary Provisions, Article 8, paragraph (1)· applies only in this paragraph and in Supplementary Provisions, Article 9
Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendmentmachine translation
「平成二十五年改正前独占禁止法」
The Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade as it stood before the Act Partially Amending the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Act No. 100 of 2013) amended it, as Article 8, paragraph (2) and Article 9 of the supplementary provisions (附則) of Act No. 45 of 2019 name it.
Short name set inSupplementary Provisions, Article 8, paragraph (2)· applies only in this provision and in Supplementary Provisions, Article 9
Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendmentmachine translation
「平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法」
The Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade as it stood before the 2009 Act partially amending it (Act No. 51 of 2009) amended it, as Article 8, paragraph (3) and Article 9 of the supplementary provisions (附則) of Act No. 45 of 2019 name it.
Short name set inSupplementary Provisions, Article 8, paragraph (3)· applies only in this provision and in Supplementary Provisions, Article 9
investigation start date
「調査開始日」
In Article 9 of the supplementary provisions (附則) of Act No. 45 of 2019, the investigation start date as defined in Article 18-2, paragraph (2) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade as amended by that Act.
Defined inSupplementary Provisions, Article 9, paragraph (1)· applies only in this article