*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

[Case No.] the Supreme People's Court (2023) SPC IP Admin. Final 1011 (Hangzhou Qing[REDACTED] Company v. the Administrative Approval Service Bureau of [REDACTED] City and the Big Data Center of [REDACTED] City, with Jiao[REDACTED] Smart City Development Co., Ltd. of [REDACTED] City as the Third Party of First Instance, a Case of Abuse of Administrative Power to Eliminate or Restrict Competition)

[Case Facts] Hangzhou Qing[REDACTED] Company (hereinafter "Qing[REDACTED] Company") is a provider of internet rental bicycle services. On the grounds that the Administrative Approval Service Bureau of [REDACTED] City (hereinafter the "[REDACTED] Administrative Approval Bureau") and the Big Data Center of [REDACTED] City had unlawfully established and implemented a franchise for shared e-bikes in that city, thereby constituting an abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition, it filed an administrative lawsuit requesting the revocation of the challenged specific administrative act. The Court of First Instance rendered a judgment dismissing Qing[REDACTED] Company's claims. Dissatisfied, Qing[REDACTED] Company filed an appeal.

Upon hearing the case at second instance, the Supreme People's Court held that the [REDACTED] Administrative Approval Bureau and the Big Data Center of [REDACTED] City, by establishing a franchise right in the field of shared e-bikes in that city and granting it to Jiao[REDACTED] Smart City Development Co., Ltd. of [REDACTED] City (hereinafter "Jiao[REDACTED] Company"), in effect established and granted a franchise right for shared e-bikes, which amounted to an administrative organ exercising administrative power to restrict transactions. Such conduct lacked legality and reasonableness and had the effect of eliminating or restricting competition, thereby constituting the abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law. In view of the fact that the [REDACTED] Administrative Approval Bureau established the franchise right in the field of shared e-bikes in that city without legal basis and beyond the scope of its authority, and that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove that revoking the challenged act would harm national interests or the public interest, the challenged administrative act should be revoked. Accordingly, the court of final instance rendered a judgment revoking the judgment of first instance and, upon amendment, revoking the administrative act of establishing a franchise right in the field of shared e-bikes in [REDACTED] City and granting it to Jiao[REDACTED] Company.

[Typical Significance] This case is the first in which the Supreme People's Court has found an abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition. It is of positive significance for clarifying the criteria for finding an abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition, regulating such abuse of administrative power in accordance with the law, promoting the genuine opening-up of market access, advancing in depth the building of a unified national market, and enhancing market vitality.