|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ten Model Cases concerning the Services and Guarantee of the People's Courts for the Development of Ecological Civilization in A New Era Issued by the Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院发布10起人民法院服务保障新时代生态文明建设典型案例 |
| (June 4, 2018) | | （2018年6月4日） |
| I. People v. Defendant Entity DyStar Nanjing Colours Co., Ltd., Defendant Wang Zhanrong, and Other Defendants for Environmental Pollution | | 一、被告单位德司达（南京）染料有限公司、被告人王占荣等污染环境案 |
| II. People v. Defendants Liang Lide and Liang Teming for Illegal Mining | | 二、被告人梁理德、梁特明非法采矿案 |
| III. People v. Defendant Bai Jiabi for Fire | | 三、被告人白加碧失火案 |
| IV. People's Procuratorate of Yantai City, Shandong Province v. Wang Zhendian and Ma Qunkai for Civil Public Interest Litigation concerning Environmental Pollution | | 四、山东省烟台市人民检察院诉王振殿、马群凯环境污染民事公益诉讼案 |
| V. Chongqing Changshou District Zhen Xin Xian Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. v. Zhongyan Chongqing Changshou Salt Chemical Co., Ltd. and Sichuan Salt Industry Geological Drilling Brigade for Dispute over Environmental Pollution Liability | | 五、重庆市长寿区珍心鲜农业开发有限公司诉中盐重庆长寿盐化有限公司、四川盐业地质钻井大队环境污染责任纠纷案 |
| VI. Shanxi Jinghai Industrial Co., Ltd. and Other Companies v. Laiwu Mining Co., Ltd. of Laiwu Iron and Steel Group for Disputes over Equity Transfer | | 六、山西京海实业有限公司等诉莱芜钢铁集团莱芜矿业有限公司股权转让纠纷案 |
| VII. The People's Government of Liuchang Miao Township, Qingzhen City, Guizhou Province v. Huang Qifa and Others for Disputes over Confirmation of Invalidity of Contracts | | 七、贵州省清镇市流长苗族乡人民政府诉黄启发等确认合同无效纠纷案 |
| VIII. Chen Yongrong and Others v. Nanning Zhenning Development Co., Ltd. For Dispute over Compensation for Damage Caused by Noise Pollution | | 八、陈永荣等诉南宁振宁开发有限责任公司噪音污染损害赔偿纠纷案 |
| IX. The People's Procuratorate of Xiling District, Yichang City, Hubei Province v. the Forestry Bureau of Lichuan City, Hubei Province for Disputes over Administrative Public Interest Litigation for Failure to Fulfill Statutory Duties | | 九、湖北省宜昌市西陵区人民检察院诉湖北省利川市林业局不履行法定职责行政公益诉讼案 |
| X. Li Zhaojun v. the Environmental Protection Bureau of Shangyu District, Shaoxing City, Zhejiang Province for Administrative Penalties | | 十、李兆军诉浙江省绍兴市上虞区环境保护局行政处罚案 |
| I. People v. Defendant Entity DyStar Nanjing Colours Co., Ltd., Defendant Wang Zhanrong, and Other Defendants for Environmental Pollution | | 一、被告单位德司达（南京）染料有限公司、被告人王占荣等污染环境案 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| The waste acid liquid generated in the production process of DyStar Company is a hazardous waste and should be delivered to qualified enterprises for disposal under the relevant provisions of the state. In September 2010, defendant Wang Jun was appointed by DyStar Company to contact the disposal of waste acid and reached a verbal agreement with Wang Junrong, the legal representative of Shunjiu Company which only has the qualification for the distribution of hazardous chemicals, on disposal of waste acid at the price of 580 yuan per ton. Thereafter, the waste acid liquid generated by DyStar Company was delivered to defendant Wang Zhanrong for disposal. Defendant Huang Jinjun, then director of the company's tank area, knowing that Wang Zhanrong did not have the qualifications for disposal, was still specifically responsible for directly contacting Wang Zhanrong who transported waste acid. Wang Jun was responsible for examining the payment for the waste acid disposal fees. In September 2013, Wang Zhanrong, knowing that Ding Weidong (handled in a separate action) had no qualifications for disposal of waste acid, still reached a verbal agreement with Ding Weidong on disposal cost of 150 yuan per ton, and instructed defendant Xu Renmi to drive a tank car to transport waste acid from DyStar Company directly to a vessel parked by Ding Weidong at the Yiling Wharf in Jiangdu. By May 2014, waste acid delivered to Ding Weidong for disposal totaled 2,828.02 tons. Ding Weidong instructed defendants Sun Xinshan, Qian Cunlin and others for multiple times to drive the vessel at night, and discharged 2,698.1 tons of waste acid directly into the riverway in the river areas of Taidong River and Xintongyang Canal. Sun Xinshan participated in the discharge of 1728.82 tons, and Qian Cunlin participated in the discharge of 318.78 tons. Later, 129.92 tons of waste acid that Ding Weidong failed to discharge was seized. The Jiangsu Science and Technology Consulting Center and the Jiangsu Provincial Academy of Environmental Science held upon expert demonstration and analysis that the aforesaid waste acid liquid generated by DyStar Company was hazardous waste whose main component was sulfuric acid and that contained a large volume of organic matter. With relatively high concentration, the sulfuric acid was strongly corrosive, and extremely harmful to living things, water bodies and the environment. The large amount of organic waste remaining in waste acid would also cause long-term cumulative damage to the biological environment. | | 德司达公司生产过程中产生的废酸液体属于危险废物，依照国家相关规定应当交由具有资质的企业进行处置。2010年9月，被告人王军受德司达公司指派联系处置废酸事宜，与仅具有经销危险化学品资质的顺久公司法定代表人王占荣达成了以每吨580元处置废酸的口头协议。此后，德司达公司产生的废酸液体均交由被告人王占荣进行处置。时任公司罐区主管的被告人黄进军明知顺久公司王占荣没有处置资质，仍具体负责与拉运废酸的王占荣直接对接，王军负责审核支付处置废酸费用。2013年9月，王占荣明知丁卫东（另案处理）没有处置废酸资质，仍与丁卫东达成每吨150元处置费用的口头协议，并指使被告人徐仁米驾驶槽罐车从德司达公司拉运废酸，直接送至丁卫东停放在江都宜陵码头等处的船上。至2014年5月间，交由丁卫东处置的废酸共计2828.02吨。期间，丁卫东多次指使被告人孙新山、钱存林等人于夜间驾驶船只，将其中的2698.1吨废酸直接排放至泰东河和新通扬运河水域的河道中。其中，孙新山参与排放1729.82吨，钱存林参与排放318.78吨。后丁卫东未及排放的129.92吨废酸被查获。江苏科技咨询中心、江苏省环境科学研究院专家论证分析认为，德司达公司产生的上述废酸液体属于危险废物，其中主要成份为硫酸并含有大量有机物，硫酸浓度较高且具有极强的腐蚀性，对生物、水体、环境的危害极大，废酸中残存的大量有机废物对生物环境也会造成长远的累积性危害。 |
| [Adjudication] | | 【裁判结果】 |
| In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Gaoyou City, Jiangsu Province held that defendant DyStar Company, knowing that defendant Wang Zhanrong's Shunjiu Company had no qualification for disposal of waste acid, delivered waste acid generated during the production process to Wang Zhanrong for disposal, thus violated the law and provisions of the state on environmental protection; defendant Wang Zhanrong, knowing that Ding Weidong had no qualification for disposal of waste acid, still transferred the waste acid of DyStar Company to Ding Weidong for disposal; defendant Xu Renmi, knowing that the stuff he transported was chemical waste liquid and that Ding Weidong might not have the ability to dispose of waste acid, assisted Wang Zhanrong in transportation; and defendants Sun Xinshan and Qian Cunlin, knowing that it was chemical waste liquid, still secretly discharged it in violation of the provisions of the state, and ultimately lead to serious environmental pollution consequences, all of which constituted the crime of environmental pollution and joint crime. Defendants Wang Jun and Huang Jinjun, directly liable persons in charge and other directly liable persons of DyStar Company, should have known that Wang Zhanrong has no qualification for disposal of waste acid, but still promoted transaction within their respective duties, resulting in serious environmental pollution. They should be held criminally liable for the crime of environmental pollution. To reduce the disposal cost of hazardous waste, DyStar Company, knowing that others had no qualification for disposal, still entrusted disposal, ultimately lead to serious environmental pollution, and therefore reduced huge amount of disposal expense. In consideration of DyStar Company's circumstances of crime and capacity of paying fine, the court of first instance sentenced DyStar Company to a fine of 20 million yuan and other defendants to imprisonment ranging from one to five years in addition to fines for the crime of environmental pollution. After a second-instance hearing, the Intermediate People's Court of Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province affirmed the original judgment. | | 江苏省高邮市人民法院一审认为，被告单位德司达公司违反国家环境保护法律规定，明知被告人王占荣经营的顺久公司无废酸处置资质，将公司生产过程中产生的废酸交由王占荣处置；被告人王占荣明知丁卫东亦无废酸处置资质，仍将德司达公司的废酸转交其处置；被告人徐仁米明知其运输的是化工废液以及丁卫东可能没有处置废酸的能力，而帮助王占荣进行运输作业；被告人孙新山、钱存林明知是化工废液，仍然违反国家规定偷排，最终导致严重污染环境后果，均已构成污染环境罪，且属共同犯罪。被告人王军、黄进军系德司达公司直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员，应当知道王占荣没有废酸处置资质，仍然在各自职责范围内促成交易，导致严重污染环境的后果发生，均应以污染环境罪追究刑事责任。德司达公司为降低危险废物的处置成本，在明知他人没有处置资质的情况下仍委托进行处置，最终导致严重污染环境，德司达公司由此减少支出巨额的处置费用。一审法院综合德司达公司的犯罪情节以及缴纳罚金的能力，以污染环境罪判处德司达公司罚金人民币2000万元，判处其余被告人一年至五年有期徒刑不等并处罚金。江苏省扬州市中级人民法院二审维持原判。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| This case is a criminal case of environmental pollution caused by pollution of water bodies due to illegal disposal of hazardous waste, in which helpful exploration was made for appropriately determining the amount of fines to be imposed upon entities committing the crime of environmental pollution under the principle of severity of the punishment commensurate with the crime committed and the criminal liability to be borne by the offender. According to the provisions of the Criminal Law of China, the amount of fines shall be determined according to the circumstances of the crime. For the determination of fines to be imposed upon an entity, comprehensive consideration shall be given to the entity's amount of illegal gains, losses caused and other factors, according to the circumstances and characteristics of the crime committed by the entity. To reduce the disposal cost of hazardous waste, DyStar Company, knowing that others had no qualification for disposal, still entrusted disposal, ultimately leading to serious consequence of environmental pollution. The huge amount of disposal expenses avoided to be paid may be determined as the gains obtained through the criminal act. Concurrently, considerable expenses will be caused by elimination of serious consequences of environmental pollution. According to relevant judicial interpretations, public and private property losses include property losses and damages directly caused by environmental pollution, reduced actual value, and expenses caused by the necessary rational measures taken for preventing pollution expansion and elimination of pollution. Therefore, the amount of public and private property losses shall be used as an important parameter for determining the fines. The people's court determined the amount of fines within the range of gains obtained and public and private property losses according to DyStar Company's criminal circumstances and capacity of paying fines, which was not only conducive to the restoration of the ecological environment, but also help in fully maximizing the deterrent of criminal punishment, and urging enterprises to improve the consciousness of disposing of hazardous waste according to the law. | | 本案系因非法处置危险废物污染水体引发的环境污染刑事案件，对于根据罪责刑相适应原则妥当确定单位犯污染环境罪的罚金数额进行了有益探索。根据我国刑法规定，判处罚金，应当根据犯罪情节决定罚金数额。对于单位罚金的确定，应当根据单位犯罪的情节和特点，结合单位违法所得数额、造成损失的大小等因素综合考虑。德司达公司为降低危险废物的处置成本，明知他人没有处置资质仍委托进行处置，最终导致严重污染环境后果的发生，由此逃避支付的巨额处置费用可认定为通过犯罪行为获取的利益。同时，消除环境污染的严重后果必然会有相当的费用支出，根据相关司法解释规定，公私财产损失包括污染环境行为直接造成财产损毁、减少的实际价值，以及为防止污染扩大、消除污染而采取必要合理措施所产生的费用，故而，公私财产损失数额应当作为确定罚金的一个重要参数。人民法院根据德司达公司的犯罪情节以及缴纳罚金的能力，在实际获取利益和公私财产损失数额的区间幅度内确定判处罚金的数额，既有利于生态环境的修复，也有助于充分发挥刑罚威慑力，督促企业提高依法处置危险废物的自觉性。 |
| II. People v. Defendants Liang Lide and Liang Teming for Illegal Mining | | 二、被告人梁理德、梁特明非法采矿案 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| In the second half of 2013, Defendant Liang Lide and the Village Committee of Xiashantou Village, Yuheng Town, Wenling City decided through consultation to make Liang Lide handle the slope treatment project at the Yangfumiao Mine in the village in the name of the Village Committee. In November 2013 and September 2014, the Taizhou Municipal Land and Resources Bureau approved the exploration of a total of 273,100 tons of building stones for construction. Defendant Liang Teming was incited by Liang Lide to be responsible for managing the routine affairs at the mine. The tailings explored were sold to Donghaitang, Wenling City for road construction. By the time when the case was exposed, mining beyond the approved quantity was conducted at the mine. Upon authentication by the Zhejiang Provincial Land and Resources Department, the amount of mining in the mining area of the treatment project totaled 415,756 tons (including 381,396 tons of rock, 19,523 tons of weathered layer, and 12,209 tons of soil), and the amount of mining outside the mining area totaled 829,830 tons (including 814,289 tons of rock, 9,843 tons of weathered layer, and 5,698 tons of soil), totaling 1,245,586 tons. After deducting 273,100 tons approved by the Taizhou Municipal Land and Resources Bureau, and the weathered layer, soil and construction waste, among others, the two defendants illegally mined 822,585 tons which valued at 13,161,360 yuan. | | 2013年下半年，被告人梁理德和温岭市箬横镇下山头村村委会商定，由梁理德出面以村委会的名义办理该村杨富庙矿场的边坡治理项目。2013年11月、2014年9月台州市国土资源局审批同意其开采建筑用石料共计27.31万吨。被告人梁特明受梁理德指使在该矿负责管理日常事务，所采宕碴矿销售给温岭市东海塘用于筑路。至案发，该矿场超越审批许可数量采矿，经浙江省国土资源厅鉴定，该治理工程采挖区界内采挖量合计415756吨（包括岩石381396吨，风化层19523吨，土体12209吨），界外采挖量合计829830吨（包括岩石814289吨，风化层9843吨，土体5698吨），两项共计1245586吨。扣除台州市国土资源局审批许可的27.31万吨及风化层、土体、建筑废料等，二被告人共非法采矿822585吨，价值13161360元。 |
| [Adjudication] | | 【裁判结果】 |
| In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Wenling City, Zhejiang Province held that defendants Liang Lide and Liang Teming violated the provisions of the Mineral Resources Law, mined without permission before obtaining a mining license, and fell under particularly serious circumstances. In the joint crime, Liang Lide, playing a major role, was the principal criminal. Liang Teming, playing a secondary and auxiliary role, was an accomplice and may be subject to lighter or mitigated penalty. Given that Liang Teming was an accomplice, was able to confess to the crime faithfully after being taken into custody, pleaded guilty in court and repented of the crime, the court decided to impose mitigated punishment and probation upon Liang Teming according to the law. The court of first instance sentenced Liang Lide to a fixed-term imprisonment of four years and six months, in addition to a fine of 350,000 yuan for committing the crime of illegal mining; sentenced Liang Teming to a fixed-term imprisonment of two years with a three years' probation, in addition to a fine of 150,000 yuan for committing the crime of illegal mining; and recovered and confiscated Liang Lide's and Liang Teming's criminal gains of 13,161,360 yuan, and turned them over to the state treasury. After a second-instance hearing, the Intermediate People's Court of Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province affirmed the original judgment. | | 浙江省温岭市人民法院一审认为，被告人梁理德、梁特明违反矿产资源法的规定，未取得采矿许可证擅自采矿，情节特别严重。在共同犯罪中，梁理德起主要作用、系主犯，梁特明起次要、辅助作用，系从犯，依法可以从轻或减轻处罚。鉴于梁特明系从犯，归案后能如实供述其犯罪事实，且当庭自愿认罪，确有悔罪表现，决定对梁特明依法予以减轻处罚并适用缓刑。一审法院以非法采矿罪，判处梁理德有期徒刑四年六个月，并处罚金人民币35万元；判处梁特明有期徒刑二年，缓刑三年，并处罚金人民币15万元；对梁理德、梁特明的犯罪所得人民币13161360元，予以追缴没收，上缴国库。浙江省台州市中级人民法院二审维持原判。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| This case is a criminal case of illegal mining. Mineral resources are an important part of the country's natural resources. Indiscriminate mining and theft of minerals are relatively serious. Violators of such illegal mining acts should be severely punished. In judicial practice, the identification of the number and value of defendants' illegal mining is often the focus of a case. In this case, a qualified authentication institution was entrusted to conduct authentication, through which the amount and value of illegal mining had been rationally determined, having laid relatively sound basis for accurate sentencing. In this case, while the principal criminal was sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of four years and six months, in addition to a fine, two defendants' criminal gains of over 13 million yuan were recovered, which had strongly deterred such crimes, safeguarded national interests, and had positive demonstration and practical significance for enhancing the public's awareness of protecting mineral resources and law-abiding awareness, and promoting the orderly development and rational use of natural resources. | | 本案系非法采矿刑事案件。矿产资源是国家自然资源的重要组成部分，各地滥采、盗采矿产现象较为严重，对此类非法采矿的行为应予严惩。司法实践中，对于被告人非法采矿的数量及价值的认定往往成为案件审理的焦点。本案通过委托有资质的鉴定机构进行鉴定，较为合理地确定了非法采矿数量及价值，为准确量刑奠定了较好基础。本案在判处主犯有期徒刑四年六个月并处罚金的同时，追缴二被告人的犯罪所得1300余万元，有力地震慑了此类犯罪，维护了国家利益，对增强社会公众对矿产资源的保护意识和守法意识，促进自然资源的有序开发和合理利用有着积极的示范作用和现实意义。 |
| III. People v. Defendant Bai Jiabi for Fire | | 三、被告人白加碧失火案 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| At 14:00 on March 1, 2016, Defendants Bai Jiabi and Yang Bing were doing farm work at Shizhuang Bay, Group 2, Gufeng Village, Fanyu Town, Xuanhan County. Bai Jiabi intended to incinerate branches and weeds for fertilizer. So he borrowed a lighter from Yang Bing to ignite branches and weeds, and later ignited the forest because of the large wind. Seeing this, Bai Jiabi and Yang Bing called the police when they tried to put out the fire. Later, under the organization of the People's Government of Fanyu Town, they extinguished the mountain fire at 11 o'clock that night. After the case was exposed, Bai Jiabi proactively surrendered himself to the public security organ. Upon the on-site inspection of forestry engineering technicians, the fire was found to have caused losses of a total of 17 households of villagers, 9.21 hectares of burned area, 5,526 burned trees (including 2,210 young trees), and 74.601 cubic meters of stand volume. | | 2016年3月1日14时许，被告人白加碧与杨兵在宣汉县樊哙镇古凤村2组石渣湾干农活时，白加碧欲将树枝和杂草烧灰作肥，遂从杨兵处借来打火机点燃树枝和杂草，后由于风大引燃山林。白加碧和杨兵见状，边灭火边打电话报警，后在樊哙镇人民政府的组织下于当晚11时将山火扑灭。案发后，白加碧主动到公安机关投案自首。经林业工程技术人员现场勘验，本次火灾共造成了17户村民山林受损，过火面积9.21公顷，烧毁林木5526株（其中幼树2210株），蓄积74.601立方米。 |
| [Adjudication] | | 【裁判结果】 |
| In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Xuanhan County, Sichuan Province held that defendant Bai Jiabi caused the fire due to negligence, caused damage to the property of citizens, endangered public security, and should be punished. After the case was exposed, Bai Jiabi proactively surrendered himself and obtained the understanding of the affected villagers, so he may be given lighter punishment. The court of first instance sentenced Bai Jiabi to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year and six months with a two years' probation for the crime of fire. The first-instance judgment had taken effect. | | 四川省宣汉县人民法院一审认为，被告人白加碧过失引发火灾，并造成公民财产损失，危害了公共安全，应予惩处。案发后，白加碧能主动投案自首，并取得了受灾村民的谅解，可从轻处罚。一审法院以失火罪判处白加碧有期徒刑一年六个月，缓刑二年。一审判决已发生法律效力。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| This case was a criminal case of fire caused by burning of branches and weeds in the wild. The case was exposed in the mountainous area of Daba Mountain in the southwestern region. Due to the weak legal awareness of the people in the mountainous areas, they were not very vigilant against forest fire, and, with weak fire prevention concept, they often burned straws and weeds in the wild when doing agricultural farming in the forest area. Different from the fire accidents in urban and rural areas, the place where the case was exposed was rich in forest resources and had a wide variety of rare wild animals and plants, and important ecological value and economic value. Forest fire not only threatened the lives and property of the people, and harmed the public security, but also seriously damaged forest resources and ecological environment. The judgment in this case had alerted the mass people that not only deforestation and over-hunting were illegal activities that destroy environmental resources, but also incineration of branches and weeds in the wild causing forest fires would constitute a crime. The lawful trial of this case was conducive to motivating the mass people to raise the awareness of fire prevention in the forest and safety in the use of fire, consciously and effectively complete the ecological resources protection, forest protection and fire prevention, and safeguard the safety of forest resources. | | 本案系因野外焚烧树枝杂草引发的失火刑事案件。案发地位于西南地区的大巴山山区，由于山区群众法律意识淡薄，对森林火灾警惕性不高，防火观念不强，在林区农业耕作时常常野外用火焚烧秸秆、杂草等。与发生在城乡聚居区的失火案件不同，案发地森林资源丰富，珍稀野生动植物种类繁多，具有重要的生态价值和经济价值，一旦发生森林火灾，既威胁人民群众的生命财产安全，危害公共安全，又严重破坏森林资源和生态环境。本案判决警醒广大群众，不仅滥采滥伐、滥捕滥猎是破坏环境资源的违法行为，野外焚烧树枝杂草等行为导致森林火灾也可能构成犯罪。本案的依法审理有利于促使广大群众提高森林防火、安全用火意识，自觉做好生态资源保护和护林防火工作，维护森林资源安全。 |
| IV. People's Procuratorate of Yantai City, Shandong Province v. Wang Zhendian and Ma Qunkai for Civil Public Interest Litigation concerning Environmental Pollution | | 四、山东省烟台市人民检察院诉王振殿、马群凯环境污染民事公益诉讼案 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| From February to April 2014, Wang Zhendian and Ma Qunkai engaged in cleaning of feldspar granules with hydrochloric acid in Xiaoshui Village, Zuocun Town, Laizhou City without undergoing any formalities of registration, security inspection or environmental assessment. 60 tons of waste acid liquor generated during the operation process leaked. The leaking waste acid liquor polluted the soil and groundwater around the pickling tank, and then polluted the water body of Xiaoshui River through the drainage ditch. At the end of 2014, after Wang Zhendian and Ma Qunkai's cleaning of feldspar granules with hydrochloric acid was seized and shut down by the Laizhou Municipal Public Security Bureau, Wang Zhendian filled 20 tons of waste acid liquor in the pickling tank with sandy soil. Upon authentication, the acts of Wang Zhendian and Ma Qunkai caused pollution to nearby groundwater, soil and water body of Xiaoshui River. The contaminated sand in the pickling tank in dispute was hazardous waste, and the ecological environment loss caused by pollution totaled 776,000 yuan. On June 1, 2016, Wang Zhendian and Ma Qunkai were subject to criminal liability for the crime of environmental pollution. On January 3, 2017, the Yantai Municipal People's Procuratorate instituted a civil environmental public interest litigation with the Intermediate People's Court of Yantai City, requesting the court to order Wang Zhendian and Ma Qunkai to eliminate the danger, treat the contaminated sand in the pickling pool, and restore the contaminated part of the groundwater, soil and water body in Xiaoshui River to the original state; or to compensate for the expenses of treating the contaminated sand in the pickling tank and the ecological damage repair expenses totaling 776,000 yuan, if the original state could not be restored and the danger could not be eliminated. | | 2014年2月至4月期间，王振殿、马群凯在没有办理任何注册、安检、环评等手续的情况下，在莱州市柞村镇消水庄村从事盐酸清洗长石颗粒项目。作业过程中产生的60吨废酸液发生渗漏。渗漏废酸液对酸洗池周边土壤和地下水造成污染，又通过排水沟对消水河水体造成污染。2014年底，王振殿、马群凯盐酸清洗长石颗粒作业被莱州市公安局查获关停后，王振殿用沙土将20吨废酸液填埋于酸洗池内。经鉴定，王振殿、马群凯的行为对附近的地下水、土壤和消水河水体造成污染，案涉酸洗池内受污染沙土属于危险废物，因污染造成的生态环境损失共计77.6万元。2016年6月1日，王振殿、马群凯因犯污染环境罪被追究刑事责任。2017年1月3日，烟台市人民检察院向烟台市中级人民法院提起环境民事公益诉讼，请求判令王振殿、马群凯消除危险，治理酸洗池内受污染沙土，对污染区域周边地下水、土壤和消水河内水体的污染部分恢复原状；如不能恢复原状、消除危险，则赔偿酸洗池内受污染沙土的处置费用及生态损害修复费用共计77.6万元。 |
| [Adjudication] | | 【裁判结果】 |
| In the trial of first instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Yantai City, Shandong Province held that the sandy soil used by Wang Zhendian and Ma Qunkai to fill the waste acid liquor adsorbed the waste acid liquor in the pickling tank and became a hazardous waste containing or being tainted with corrosive toxicity. In the environmental damage inspection report issued by the authentication institution, 223 tons of contaminated sandy soil in the pickling tank was regarded as the volume of hazardous waste, and the unit treatment cost was 250 yuan to 800 yuan per ton. According to the monitoring report of the Laizhou Municipal Environmental Monitoring Station, the residual wastewater in the pickling tank was strong acid wastewater. The acid-washing wastewater discharged by Wang Zhendian and Ma Qunkai through the pickling tank and the drainage ditch was hazardous waste, causing the water wells of some residents to be unable for drinking. The wastewater leaked during the period of storage in the pickling tank penetrated into the surrounding soil and groundwater, and the wastewater in the drainage ditch flowed into the Xiaoshui River. There were no other similar sources of pollution around the contaminated area in dispute. It could be determined that the contaminated groundwater was caused by the environmental pollution caused by Wang Zhendian and Ma Qunkai. According to the opinions of experts, where the pollution sources are eliminated and pollution factors are blocked from entering into the groundwater environment, the original contaminated area could reach the water quality standard, but it did not mean that the regional ecological environment had been improved or restored. Wang Zhendian and Ma Qunkai should still assume the responsibility for restoring the ecological environment damage in the polluted areas, and should assume the restoration expenses, if restoration could not be conducted on their own. According to the inspection report issued by the authentication institution, the court of first instance took six times virtual treatment costs to calculate on the basis of 60 tons of pickling wastewater stealthily discharged that was determined in the effective criminal judgment, and determined expenses for restoring the ecological environment damage to be 720,000 yuan. The court of first instance rendered a judgment that: Wang Zhendian and Ma Qunkai should dispose of 223 tons of contaminated sandy soil in the pickling tank according to the requirements for disposal of hazardous waste under the supervision of the competent environmental protection department, or compensate for the disposal expenses of 56,000 yuan if they could not conduct disposal on their own, and the competent environmental protection department should entrust a third party to conduct disposal; and develop repair plans for the treatment of the pollution of the surrounding groundwater and soil in the contaminated area and the water bodies in Xiaoshui River, and conduct restoration, and compensate for 720,000 yuan of expenses for restoration of ecological damage and make payment to the environmental public interest litigation fund account of Yantai City, if the restoration obligations were not performed as scheduled or the restoration failed to reach the standards. The first-instance judgment had taken effect. | | 山东省烟台市中级人民法院一审认为，王振殿、马群凯用来填埋废酸液的沙土吸附酸洗池中的废酸液，成为含有或沾染腐蚀性毒性的危险废物。鉴定机构出具的环境损害检验报告将酸洗池内受污染沙土总量223吨作为危险废物量，单位治理成本为每吨250元至800元。莱州市环境监测站监测报告显示，酸洗池内残留废水属于强酸性废水。王振殿、马群凯通过酸洗池、排水沟排放的酸洗废水系危险废物，导致部分居民家中水井无法饮用。储存于酸洗池期间渗漏的废水渗透至周边土壤和地下水，排水沟内的废水流入消水河。涉案污染区域周边没有其他类似污染源，可以确定受污染地下水系王振殿、马群凯实施的环境污染行为造成。根据专家意见，在消除污染源阻断污染因子进入地下水环境的情况下，原污染区可能达到水质标准，但并不意味着地区生态环境好转或已修复。王振殿、马群凯仍应当承担污染区域的生态环境损害修复责任，不能自行修复的，应当承担修复费用。一审法院根据鉴定机构出具的检验报告，取虚拟治理成本的6倍，按照已生效的刑事判决认定的偷排酸洗废水60吨计算，认定生态环境损害修复费用为72万元。一审法院判决：王振殿、马群凯在环境保护主管部门的监督下按照危险废物的处置要求将酸洗池内受污染沙土223吨进行处置消除危险，如不能自行处置，则赔偿处置费用5.6万元，由环境保护主管部门委托第三方进行处置；对污染区域周边地下水、土壤和消水河内水体的污染治理制定修复方案并进行修复，逾期不履行修复义务或者修复未达到标准的，赔偿生态损害修复费用72万元，支付至烟台市环境公益诉讼基金帐户。一审判决已发生法律效力。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| This case was a civil environmental public interest litigation instituted by the people's procuratorate, involving a series of problems such as the pollution of surface water, groundwater and soil, and disposal of hazardous waste. The judgment in this case clarifies that the restoration of the water quality in the polluted area to reach the standards does not mean that the regional ecological environment has been restored, and the infringers' claim for assuming no legal liability based thereupon should not be supported. For the determination of the expenses for the restoration of the ecological environment damage, the court adopted the authentication opinions and incorporated the contaminated sandy soil in the pickling tank into the hazardous waste, while determining that the strong acid wastewater discharged by the defendant was also a hazardous waste, and further determined the disposal expenses and expenses for the restoration of the ecological environment damage with reference to the reasonable calculation methods. In this case, the defendants were sentenced to assume the liability of restoration under the supervision of the competent environmental protection department, which was conducive to the scientific restoration of the damaged ecological environment and the appropriate performance of the obligations as determined in the judgment and had a relatively good demonstration significance for the trial of such cases. | | 本案系人民检察院提起的环境民事公益诉讼，涉及污染地表水、地下水、土壤及危险废物的处置等一系列问题。本案判决明确污染区域水质恢复达标并不意味着区域生态环境已经修复，侵权人以此为由主张不承担法律责任不能得到支持。对于生态环境损害修复费用的认定，法院采纳鉴定意见将酸洗池内受污染沙土纳入危险废物，同时认定被告排放的强酸废水亦属危险废物，进而参照合理的计算方法确定了处置费用和生态环境损害修复费用。本案判决被告在环境保护主管部门监督下履行修复责任，有利于受损生态环境的科学修复和判决义务的妥当履行，对于此类案件的审理具有较好的示范意义。 |
V. Chongqing Changshou District Zhen Xin Xian Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. v. Zhongyan Chongqing Changshou Salt Chemical Co., Ltd. and Sichuan Salt Industry Geological Drilling Brigade for Dispute over Environmental Pollution Liability
．．．．．． | | 五、重庆市长寿区珍心鲜农业开发有限公司诉中盐重庆长寿盐化有限公司、四川盐业地质钻井大队环境污染责任纠纷案
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥1400.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
|
|
|
|
|
|