Search

Search provisions, jump to a law or an article

1 article

Supplementary Provisions, Article 8

第八条

Where an enterprise that committed a violation prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1) or Article 7-9, paragraph (1) or of the New Antimonopoly Act has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation (meaning the investigation start date prescribed in of the New Antimonopoly Act; the same applies hereinafter in this Article), received an order under prior to its amendment by the (hereinafter in this paragraph and the following Article referred to as the "Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment") (limited to where the period prescribed in the 2005 Amendment has elapsed without a request for the commencement of trial proceedings regarding that order), or a decision under the 2005 Amendment (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), that order or decision is deemed to be an order under Article 7-2, paragraph (1) or Article 7-9, paragraph (1) or of the New Antimonopoly Act that has become final and binding, and of the New Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 7-9, paragraph (3) or of the New Antimonopoly Act; the same applies hereinafter in this paragraph and the following paragraph) and of the New Antimonopoly Act apply. The same applies to the application of Article 7-3, paragraphs (1) and of the New Antimonopoly Act to that enterprise where a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise (meaning a wholly owned subsidiary company prescribed in of the New Antimonopoly Act; the same applies hereinafter in this Article and the following Article) (limited to one that was a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise on the day it received that order or decision), another enterprise that is a juridical person and was the counterparty to a merger with that enterprise, another enterprise that is a juridical person and transferred all or part of the business relating to that violation to that enterprise, or another enterprise that is a juridical person and had that enterprise succeed through a split to all or part of the business relating to that violation has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received that order or decision (in the case of that transfer or split, limited to one relating to the business that was transferred or split).

新独占禁止法第七条の二第一項又は第七条の九第一項若しくは第二項に規定する違反行為をした事業者が、当該違反行為に係る事件についての調査開始日（新独占禁止法第二条の二第十五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、による改正前の独占禁止法（以下この項及び次条において「平成十七年改正前独占禁止法」という。）の規定による命令を受けたことがあるとき（当該命令についての審判手続の開始を請求することなくに規定する期間を経過している場合に限る。）、又は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。）は、当該命令又は審決を新独占禁止法第七条の二第一項又は第七条の九第一項若しくは第二項の規定による命令であって確定しているものとみなして、新独占禁止法第七条の三第一項（新独占禁止法第七条の九第三項又は第四項において読み替えて準用する場合を含む。以下この項及び次項において同じ。）及び第三項の規定を適用する。当該事業者の完全子会社（新独占禁止法第二条第三項に規定する完全子会社をいう。以下この条及び次条において同じ。）（当該命令又は審決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。）、当該事業者の合併の相手方である他の事業者たる法人、当該事業者に対して当該違反行為に係る事業の全部若しくは一部を譲渡した他の事業者たる法人又は当該事業者に対して分割により当該違反行為に係る事業の全部若しくは一部を承継させた他の事業者たる法人が、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、当該命令又は審決（当該譲渡又は分割については、当該譲渡又は分割がされた事業に係るものに限る。）を受けた場合における、当該事業者についての新独占禁止法第七条の三第一項及び第三項の規定の適用についても、同様とする。

Where an enterprise that committed a violation prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1) or Article 7-9, paragraph (1) or of the New Antimonopoly Act has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received a decision under prior to its amendment by the (referred to in the following Article as the "Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment"), that decision is deemed to be a decision under of the New Antimonopoly Act, and Article 7-3, paragraphs (1) and of the New Antimonopoly Act apply. The same applies to the application of Article 7-3, paragraphs (1) and 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), another enterprise that is a juridical person and was the counterparty to a merger with that enterprise, another enterprise that is a juridical person and transferred all or part of the business relating to that violation to that enterprise, or another enterprise that is a juridical person and had that enterprise succeed through a split to all or part of the business relating to that violation has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received that decision (in the case of that transfer or split, limited to one relating to the business that was transferred or split).

新独占禁止法第七条の二第一項又は第七条の九第一項若しくは第二項に規定する違反行為をした事業者が、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、による改正前の独占禁止法（次条において「平成二十五年改正前独占禁止法」という。）の規定による審決を受けたことがあるときは、当該審決を新独占禁止法第六十三条第二項の規定による決定とみなして、新独占禁止法第七条の三第一項及び第三項の規定を適用する。当該事業者の完全子会社（当該審決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。）、当該事業者の合併の相手方である他の事業者たる法人、当該事業者に対して当該違反行為に係る事業の全部若しくは一部を譲渡した他の事業者たる法人又は当該事業者に対して分割により当該違反行為に係る事業の全部若しくは一部を承継させた他の事業者たる法人が、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（当該譲渡又は分割については、当該譲渡又は分割がされた事業に係るものに限る。）を受けた場合における、当該事業者についての同条第一項及び第三項の規定の適用についても、同様とする。

Where an enterprise that committed a violation prescribed in of the New Antimonopoly Act has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received an order, notice or decision prescribed in prior to its amendment by the 2009 Antimonopoly Act Amendment Act (referred to in the following Article as the "Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment") or an order, notice or decision prescribed in , that order is deemed to be an order under Article 7-2, paragraph (1) or Article 7-9, paragraph (1) or of the New Antimonopoly Act that has become final and binding, that notice is deemed to be a notice under Article 7-4, paragraph (7) or of the New Antimonopoly Act, and that decision is deemed to be a decision under of the New Antimonopoly Act, and of the New Antimonopoly Act as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to of the New Antimonopoly Act applies. The same applies to the application of of the New Antimonopoly Act as so applied 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 order, notice or decision), another enterprise that is a juridical person and was the counterparty to a merger with that enterprise, another enterprise that is a juridical person and transferred all or part of the business relating to that violation to that enterprise, or another enterprise that is a juridical person and had that enterprise succeed through a split to all or part of the business relating to that violation has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received that order, notice or decision (in the case of that transfer or split, limited to one relating to the business that was transferred or split).

新独占禁止法第七条の九第二項に規定する違反行為をした事業者が、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、平成二十一年独占禁止法改正法による改正前の独占禁止法（次条において「平成二十一年改正前独占禁止法」という。）に規定する命令、通知若しくは審決又はに規定する命令、通知若しくは審決を受けたことがあるときは、当該命令を新独占禁止法第七条の二第一項又は第七条の九第一項若しくは第二項の規定による命令であって確定しているものと、当該通知を新独占禁止法第七条の四第七項又は第七条の七第三項の規定による通知と、当該審決を新独占禁止法第六十三条第二項の規定による決定とみなして、新独占禁止法第七条の九第四項において読み替えて準用する新独占禁止法第七条の三第一項の規定を適用する。当該事業者の完全子会社（当該命令、通知又は審決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。）、当該事業者の合併の相手方である他の事業者たる法人、当該事業者に対して当該違反行為に係る事業の全部若しくは一部を譲渡した他の事業者たる法人又は当該事業者に対して分割により当該違反行為に係る事業の全部若しくは一部を承継させた他の事業者たる法人が、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、当該命令、通知又は審決（当該譲渡又は分割については、当該譲渡又は分割がされた事業に係るものに限る。）を受けた場合における、当該事業者についての同項の規定の適用についても、同様とする。

© 2026 japanlaw.orgA copy for reading and reference — not an official source, and not legal advice. Only the Japanese text published by the government has legal effect.Run by Genjido LLC (源氏道合同会社) · contact@genjido.comContactSourcesTermsPrivacy