法律翻译｜维他命C反垄断诉讼案情摘要

一审｜张亦衡 南加州大学本科

二审｜戚若音 UCB LL.M.

编辑｜杨玟萱 中南财经政法大学本科

Case concerning vitamin C antitrust litigation between Animal Science Products, Inc., et al., and Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al.

In 2001, some Chinese pharmaceutical companies including the Defendants, Hebei Welcome pharmaceutical company et. al., conspired to form a cartel intending to fix the price and quantity of international sales of vitamin C, under the auspice of the China Chamber of Commerce of Medicines & Health Products Importers & Exporters (the Chamber).

2001年，包括被告河北维尔康制药有限公司在内的一些中国制药企业在中国医药保健品进出口商会（以下简称商会）的支持下，合谋构成卡特尔（此处指经营者集中），意图操纵维生素C的国际销售价格和供给数量。

In 2005, some U.S.-based vitamin C purchasers including the Plaintiffs, Animals Science Products Inc. et. al., launched a multidistrict class action before the U.S. federal courts, alleging that the conspiracy of the Defendants in 2001 and the price-fixing activities in the U.S. have violated U.S. antitrust law, namely the Sherman Act.

2005年，一些美国的维生素C购买者，包括原告动物科学产品公司等，在美国联邦法院发起了一项跨地区集体诉讼，指控被告在2001年的共谋和在美国的价格操纵活动违反了美国反垄断法，即《谢尔曼法案》。

（图片来源于网络）

Two main facts of the case remain to be clarified. First, what is the character of the Chamber? And second, whether the Defendants conducted the price-fixing activities voluntarily or was mandated by Chinese law or the government?

该案中，两个主要事实有待澄清。首先，商会在其中扮演的了什么角色？第二，被告操纵价格的行为是自愿的还是受中国法律或政府的要求？

In 2005, Animals Science Products Inc. et. al. (Plaintiffs) sued Hebei Welcome pharmaceutical company et. al. (Defendants) before the Federal Eastern District Court of New York (the EDNY Court). The Defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim based on exemptions in response. They argued that Chinese law required them to do so and they should be shielded from liability by the act of State doctrine, foreign sovereign compulsion and international comity. Subsequently, the Ministry of Commerce of the PRC filed an amicus brief in favor of the defendant’s motion in 2006.

2005年，动物科学产品公司等法人（原告）起诉河北维尔康制药有限公司等（被告）一案在纽约东区联邦地区法院受审。被告诉诸免责事由请求驳回原告诉请。被告辩称，他们的行为是基于中国法律的要求，应受到国家行为原则、外国主权强制原则和国际礼让的保护而免于担责。随后，中国商务部于2006年提交了一份支持被告动议的法庭之友书状。

In 2013, mainly relying on evidence provided by the purchasers, the EDNY Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion, ruling that the defendant’s price-fixing is not mandated by the Chinese government or Chinese law, and the Ministry’s amicus brief is not conclusive in this court.

2013年，主要依靠买方提供的证据，纽约东区联邦地区法院驳回了原告的动议，裁定被告的限价行为没有得到中国政府或中国法律的授权，商务部的法庭之友书状在该法院并不具有决定性效力。

Upon a failure in the first-instance court, the Defendants (the Appellants) appealed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the Second Circuit). The Second Circuit, based on the principle of international comity, considered that the Ministry’s amicus brief should be deferred on condition that it’s reasonable. After finding the Ministry’s interpretation of Chinese law facially reasonable, the Second Circuit decided to defer to it, thus favoring the Appellants in 2016 and dismissing the order of the ENDY Court concerning the Motion of Dismiss.

一审法院败诉后，被告（上诉人）向美国第二巡回上诉法院提起上诉。第二巡回法庭基于国际礼让原则认为，商务部的法庭之友书状只要内容合理就应该尊重。在发现司法部对中国法律的解释表面上合理后，第二巡回法院决定遵从该解释，从而在2016年作出有利于上诉人的裁判，驳回了纽约州联邦东区法院关于驳回动议的命令。

（图片来源于网络）

The Plaintiffs (Appellees, Petitioners) then petitioned for a Certiorari before the Supreme Court. After scrutinizing the true meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 and the precedents, the Supreme Court held that statements of foreign government should be accorded respectful consideration by the federal court but not necessarily conclusive. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in 2008.

原告（被上诉人、请愿人）随后向最高法院申请调卷令。在仔细研究了《联邦民事诉讼规则》第44.1条的真正含义和判例后，最高法院认为，联邦法院应尊重外国政府的声明，但外国政府的声明不一定具有决定性。因此，最高法院撤销了第二巡回法院的判决，并于2008年将案件发回重审。

In 2021, the Second Circuit eventually delivered a judgment different from the EDNY Court and the Supreme Court. In favor of the Defendants (Appellants), the final judgment held that U.S. antitrust law should not be interpreted as applicable to defendants. In the light of violating the principle of international comity, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case.

2021年，第二巡回法院最终做出了不同于纽约州联邦东区法院和最高法院的判决，判定被告（上诉人）胜诉。该院最终意见认为美国反垄断法不应被理解为适用于被告，先前判决违反了国际礼让原则。因此，第二巡回法院撤销原判，发回重审，指示驳回该案。

(Based on the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States made on 14 June 2018)

(根据美国最高法院2018年6月14日的判决)

The core issue, in this case, is whether a federal court is required to treat a submission as conclusive from the foreign government describing its law when determining foreign law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1.

本案的核心问题是，在根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第44.1条研究外国法律时，各级联邦法院是否需要认为外国政府描述其法律的呈件具有决定性效力。

Under Rule 44.1, the court may consider any relevant material or source, whether or not submitted by a party in determining foreign law. Besides, the court’s determination must be treated as a ruling on a question of law. According to Wright & Miller, this rule requires the process of determining alien law identical with the method of ascertaining domestic law to the extent that it is possible to do so[1]. The appropriate weight of a foreign state’s views about the meaning of its law in each case shall vary from case to case, which remains to be scrutinized by the circumstances.

根据规则44.1，法院在确定外国法律时可以考虑任何相关材料或来源，无论是否由涉案一方提交。此外，法院的裁定必须被视为对法律问题的裁决。根据查尔斯·莱特与亚瑟·米勒所著《联邦民事法律实践与流程》中的观点，这一规则要求研究外国法的过程与研究国内法的方法在可能的范围内相同。在案件决定时，外国政府关于其法律含义的观点的适当权重应因案件而异，这仍有待根据具体情况进行审查。

（图片来源于网络）

In casu, the Second Circuit failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 44.1. Firstly, the Second Circuit riveted its attention on the Ministry’s submission and failed to consider evidence provided by the Plaintiffs, deeming the Ministry’s submission binding so long as facially reasonable. Secondly, the Second Circuit’s determination was a ruling on a question of facts instead of law, failing to determine its legal force from scratch. Therefore, the Second Circuit erred in deeming the Ministry’s submission binding.

在本案中，第二巡回法庭没有遵守第44.1条的要求。首先，第二巡回法庭聚焦于商务部的意见上，没有考虑原告提供的证据。其认为，只要表面上合理，商务部的意见就具有约束力。第二，第二巡回法院的裁定是对事实问题而不是法律问题的裁决，未首先裁定其法律效力。因此，第二巡回法院错误地认为中国司法部的意见具有决定性约束力。

Under United States v. Pink, when a submission was obtained through official diplomatic channels and consistent with expert evidence comprehensively collected by the court, it could be treated as conclusive[2]. But this does not mean that all submissions by a foreign government are binding in the Federal Court. In casu, neither did the Ministry’s amicus brief obtain through official diplomatic channels nor was it consistent with the evidence provided by the Defendants. Therefore, the Ministry’s submission was insufficient to be treated as conclusive in the Federal Court based on the existing materials identified by the Second Circuit.

根据合众国诉平克案，当通过官方外交渠道获得的呈件与法院全面收集的专家证据一致时，该呈件可被视为具有决定性效力。但这并不意味着外国政府提交的所有文件在联邦法院都具有约束力。在本案中，商务部的法庭之友书状既没有通过官方外交渠道获得，也不与被告提供的证据相一致。因此，根据第二巡回法院认定的现有材料，商务部的意见在联邦法院不应被认为具有决定性。

International practice shows that one government may obtain from another an official statement characterizing its laws, while the information given in the reply shall not bind the judicial authority from which the request emanated[3]. Therefore, in casu, the Second Circuit’s “binding, if reasonable” resolution demonstrates an inconsistency with the international practice. Additionally, since there is no precedent in the United States of accepting a foreign country’s characterizations as binding, the Supreme Court concluded that reciprocity should not be applied here and is inconsistent with the “binding, if reasonable” resolution.

国际惯例表明，一国政府可以从另一国政府获得解释其法律的官方声明，而其中提供的信息对提出请求的司法当局没有约束力。因此，在本案中，第二巡回法院的“合理即具有约束力”的决定与国际惯例并不一致。此外，由于美国没有承认“外国的法律解释具有决定性约束力”的先例，最高法院因此得出结论——互惠原则不适用于本案，也不与“合理即具有约束力”的决定相容。

Based on the above reasons, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for renewed consideration.

基于上述理由，最高法院撤销了上诉法院的判决，并将案件发回重审。