| Ten Administrative Cases regarding Environmental Protection Published by the Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院公布人民法院环境保护行政案件十大案例 |
| (December 19, 2014) | | （2014年12月19日） |
| Table of Contents | | 目录 |
| 1. Foshan City Sanying Fine Materials Co., Ltd. v. People's Government of Shunde District of Foshan City (an administrative penalty case regarding environmental protection) | | 1．佛山市三英精细材料有限公司诉佛山市顺德区人民政府环保行政处罚案 |
| 2. Dynamic Bar v. Environmental Protection Bureau of Liangzhou District of Wuwei City (an administrative order case regarding environmental protection) | | 2．动感酒吧诉武威市凉州区环境保护局环保行政命令案 |
| 3. Haili International Golf Co., Ltd. v. State Oceanic Administration (an administrative penalty case regarding environmental protection) | | 3．海丽国际高尔夫球场有限公司诉国家海洋局环保行政处罚案 |
| 4. Lu Hong and Other 203 Persons v. Environmental Protection Bureau of Xiaoshan District of Hangzhou City (an administrative licensing case regarding environmental protection) | | 4．卢红等204人诉杭州市萧山区环境保护局环保行政许可案 |
| 5. Junning Machinery Factory v. Environmental Protection Bureau of Jin'an District of Liu'an City (an administrative penalty case regarding environmental protection) | | 5．君宁机械厂诉六安市金安区环境保护局环保行政处罚案 |
| 6. Su Yaohua v. People's Government of Boluo County of Guangdong Province (a case regarding announcement on delimiting forbidden zones for breeding) | | 6．苏耀华诉广东省博罗县人民政府划定禁养区范围通告案 |
| 7. Quanzhou Hongsheng Stone Co., Ltd. v. Environmental Protection Bureau of Jinjiang City (an administrative case regarding environmental protection) | | 7．泉州弘盛石业有限公司诉晋江市环境保护局环保行政管理案 |
| 8. Montaplast Automobiles System (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd. v. Environmental Protection Bureau of Suzhou Industrial Park (an administrative penalty case regarding environmental protection) | | 8．梦达驰汽车系统（苏州工业园区）有限公司诉苏州工业园区环境保护局环保行政处罚案 |
| 9. Xia Chunguan and Other Three Persons v. Environmental Protection Bureau of Dongtai City (an administrative licensing case regarding environmental assessment) | | 9．夏春官等4人诉东台市环境保护局环评行政许可案 |
| 10. Property Owners' Committee of Zhengwen Garden and Property Owners' Committee of Qianyang Jiayuan v. Shanghai Environmental Protection Bureau (a case regarding objection to the decision on approval of the environmental assessment report) | | 10.正文花园业委会、乾阳佳园业委会诉上海市环保局不服环评报告审批决定案 |
| 1. Foshan City Sanying Fine Materials Co., Ltd. v. People's Government of Shunde District of Foshan City (an administrative penalty case regarding environmental protection) | | 一、佛山市三英精细材料有限公司诉佛山市顺德区人民政府环保行政处罚案 |
| (1) Basic Facts | | （一）基本案情 |
| On December 2, 2011, the Environmental Transport and Urban Management Bureau of Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as the “Environmental Transport Bureau of Shunde District”) issued a Written Decision on Treatment within a Prescribed Time Limit to Foshan City Sanying Fine Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sanying Company”) on the ground that the odor concentration of exhaust gas emitted in the process of its production exceeded the prescribed standard. The Environmental Transport Bureau of Shunde District required that the treatment of odor concentration by Sanying Company should meet the requirements of the Standards for the Discharge of Odor Pollutants before January 31, 2012 and should pass the acceptance of the Environmental Transport Bureau of Shunde District; where Sanying Company failed to apply for acceptance or failed to complete the treatment tasks within the prescribed time limit, the Environmental Transport Bureau of Shunde District should order it to cease business operations or close down as required; and the Environmental Transport Bureau of Shunde District required Sanying Company to analyze the reasons for odor emissions which exceeded the prescribed standard, develop a treatment plan for meeting the prescribed standard within the prescribed time limit, implement various pollution prevention and control measures, and ensure that the discharge of pollutants reach the prescribed standard. | | 2011年12月2日，广东省佛山市顺德区环境运输和城市管理局（以下简称区环运局）以佛山市三英精细材料有限公司（以下简称三英公司）在生产过程中排放废气的臭气浓度超标为由，对该公司作出《限期治理决定书》，要求2012年1月31日前完成排放臭气浓度治理达到《恶臭污染物排放标准》的要求，并经环运局验收合格；逾期未申请验收或未完成限期治理任务，将按规定责令停业、关闭；要求该公司分析臭气浓度超标排放原因，制定限期治理达标计划以及落实各项污染防治措施，确保污染物达标排放。 |
| On February 9, 2012, Sanying Company filed an application for treatment acceptance with the Environmental Transport Bureau of Shunde District. Upon entrustment of the Environmental Transport Bureau of Shunde District, the Environmental Protection Monitoring Station of Shunde District monitored the odor emissions of Sanying Company on April 26 and June 28 of the same year and both monitoring reports showed that the odor concentration did not reach the prescribed standard. On August 29, 2012, the Environmental Transport Bureau of Shunde District organized the acceptance team to conduct an on-site inspection, inquired of the legal representative of Sanying Company, and informed the Company of the acceptance results that Sanying Company did not pass the acceptance of treatment within a prescribed time limit due to such problems that Sanying Company failed to submit the plan for treatment within a prescribed time limit, its exhaust gas treatment technologies failed to ensure that the uncontrolled emissions of exhaust gas reached the prescribed standard, the odor concentration of exhaust gas it emitted exceeded the prescribed standard, and the fuel oil it used did not meet the environmental protection requirements. | | 2012年2月9日，三英公司向区环运局申请治理验收。顺德区环境保护监测站受区环运局委托，于同年4月26日、6月28日对该公司进行臭气排放监测，两次监测报告均显示臭气浓度未达标。区环运局遂于2012年8月29日组织验收组现场检查并对法定代表人进行调查询问，告知该公司验收结果：即存在未提交限期治理方案、废气处理技术不能确保无组织废气达标排放、排放废气的臭气浓度超标、使用的燃油不符合环保要求等四个方面的问题，未通过限期治理验收。 |
| On January 11, 2013, the People's Government of Shunde District issued a Written Notice on Administrative Penalty, and on March 18 of the same year, issued a Written Decision on Administrative Penalty after a hearing and decided that Sanying Company should cease business operations and close down from the date of receipt of the Written Decision on Administrative Penalty. Sanying Company refused to accept the Written Decision on Administrative Penalty, filed an administrative lawsuit, and requested the court to reverse the aforesaid Written Decision. | | 2013年1月11日，顺德区人民政府作出《行政处罚告知书》，同年3月18日经听证后作出《行政处罚决定书》，决定三英公司自收到行政处罚决定书之日起停业、关闭。该公司不服提起行政诉讼，请求法院撤销上述《行政处罚决定书》。 |
| (2) Judgment | | （二）裁判结果 |
| After the trial of first instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Foshan City held that: Sanying Company raised no objection to the basis of authority and administrative procedure adopted by the People's Government of Shunde District in the issuance of the Written Decision on Administrative Penalty. The plaintiff alleged that neither the sampling sites nor the sampling frequencies in the aforesaid two monitorings of odor emissions met the statutory requirements, and other interference factors failed to be excluded; therefore, the conclusions of the monitoring reports could not serve as the basis for a final decision. It was found upon investigation that the Environmental Protection Monitoring Station of Shunde District had the statutory qualification for testing exhaust gas pollutants and both odor sampling sites (monitoring sites) as selected by the Monitoring Station were sensitive spots at the boundary of Sanying Company, which conformed to the Standards for the Discharge of Odor Pollutants and the Reply of the State Environmental Protection Administration on Issues concerning the Testing of Uncontrolled Discharges of Odor Pollutants. The claim of the plaintiff that the setting of sampling sites for odor monitoring was illegal lacked legal basis. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that there were other interference factors in the aforesaid sampling sites for odor monitoring. As for the sampling frequency, the Monitoring Station adopted the monitoring frequency of “four times x three sites” in both odor monitorings and chose the maximum measurement value, but the frequency interval was less than two hours, which was a flaw to some extent; however, such a flaw was insufficient to overturn the correctness of conclusions of both monitoring reports. After the expiration of the prescribed time limit for treatment, it was found upon both monitorings that the odor concentration of the plaintiff still failed to meet the requirements of the Standards for the Discharge of Odor Pollutants and the plaintiff had other relevant environmental protection problems. The Environmental Transport Bureau of Shunde District requested the People's Government of Shunde District to make an administrative penalty decision that the plaintiff should cease business operations and close down in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Measures for the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution in Guangdong Province and Pearl River Delta. The administrative penalty decision was clear in fact finding, sufficient in evidence, and proper in the application of law. Therefore, the Court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff. After the plaintiff appealed, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province rendered a judgment of second instance to dismiss the appeal and affirm the original judgment. | | 佛山市中级人民法院一审认为，三英公司对顺德区人民政府作出处罚决定的职权依据及行政程序并无异议。原告认为上述两次臭气排放监测的采样点与频次不符合法定要求，未能排除其他干扰因素，故监测报告的结论不能作为定案依据。经查，顺德区环境保护监测站具有废气污染物检测的法定资质，该监测站两次臭气采样点即监测位置为三英公司厂界敏感点，符合《恶臭污染物排放标准》及国家环境保护总局《关于恶臭物无组织排放检测问题的复函》规定。原告认为臭气监测采样点的设置不合法的主张于法无据，其亦未提供充分证据证明上述臭气监测采样点存在其他干扰因素。至于采样频次问题，该监测站两次臭气监测均采用了4次*3点的监测频次并取其中最大测定值，但频次间隔不足2小时，存在一定瑕疵。但该瑕疵不足以推翻监测报告结论的正确性。由于原告在限期治理期限届满后，经两次监测臭气排放浓度仍未达到《恶臭污染物排放标准》的要求，且存在其他相关环保问题，经区环运局报请顺德区人民政府依照《广东省珠江三角洲大气污染防治办法》有关规定对原告作出停业、关闭的行政处罚决定，认定事实清楚，证据充分，适用法律正确，遂判决驳回原告诉讼请求。原告上诉后，广东省高级人民法院二审判决驳回上诉，维持原判。 |
| (3) Significance | | （三）典型意义 |
| At present, environmental pollution has become a social issue with great concerns of the people. Pollutions should be treated from the source. In this case, the administrative organ required the enterprise whose pollutant discharge did not reach the prescribed standard to conduct treatment within a prescribed time limit. Where the enterprise still failed to reach the prescribed standard, the administrative organ made a penalty decision to order the enterprise to stop production and close down, which had legal basis. In the trial of such administrative cases, the people's court should, on the one hand, legally review the law enforcement authority, law enforcement basis, and law enforcement procedure of the administrative organ and on the other hand, fully respect the report on the monitoring of exhaust gas pollutants and other professional judgments and expert evidence from the perspective of evidence review, and adopt legally-formed evidence. The people's court should firmly support the lawful administrative act of the environmental protection authority for strictly punishing the enterprise whose discharge of pollutants does not reach the prescribed standard; and this is the significance of this case. | | 本案典型意义在于：当前，环境污染成为群众严重关切的社会问题。治理污染要从源头抓起，本案中行政机关对排污不达标企业提出限期治理要求，仍未达标的，依法作出责令停产、关闭的处罚，于法有据。人民法院在审理此类行政案件中，一方面要依法审查行政机关的执法职权、执法依据和执法程序，另一方面对于废气污染物监测报告等专业性判断和专家证据，也要从证据审查角度给予充分尊重，对合法形成的证据予以采信。人民法院对环境保护管理机关严格处罚污染物排放不达标企业的合法行政行为，依法予以坚决支持。 |
| 2. Dynamic Bar v. Environmental Protection Bureau of Liangzhou District of Wuwei City (an administrative order case regarding environmental protection) | | 二、动感酒吧诉武威市凉州区环境保护局环保行政命令案 |
| (1) Basic Facts | | （一）基本案情 |
| After the Environmental Protection Bureau of Liangzhou District, Wuwei City, Gansu Province (hereinafter referred to as the “Environmental Protection Bureau of Liangzhou District”) received a complaint from Luk Yu Tea House within its jurisdiction about Dynamic Bar for its environmental noise pollution, it organized environmental inspection law-enforcement officers and environmental testing personnel to conduct on-site inspections (surveys) and sampling testings on the environmental noise of Dynamic Bar and the prevention and control of environmental noise pollution from 22:05 to 23:05 on November 23, December 20, and December 22, 2012. The environmental noise emission values in the four testing points of the field at night were 58.9 dB (A), 55.4 dB (A), 52.9 dB (A), and 56.9 dB (A), respectively, which all exceeded the standard for the emission of environmental noise as prescribed in the National Standard for the Emission of Environmental Noise in Social Life (GB22337-2008). On December 12, 2012, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Liangzhou District prepared a testing report, determined that the noise emitted by Dynamic Bar at night reached 58.9 dB, which exceeded the national emission standard and the act of Dynamic Bar violated the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 43 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Prevention and Control of Pollution from Environmental Noise and on January 18, 2013, issued a written decision on ordering Dynamic Bar to correct its illegal activity to Dynamic Bar in accordance with Article 59 thereof. According to the written decision, Dynamic Bar was ordered to immediately stop its illegal activity of emitting environmental noise by exceeding the prescribed standard, it should make rectification by adopting sound-insulation and noise reduction measures before February 28, 2013, and it should submit a written report on corrections before February 28, 2013. On February 27, 2013, Dynamic Bar submitted to the Environmental Protection Bureau of Liangzhou District a report on noise-proof treatment, proving that it has made rectification and at the same time, filed an application for retesting noise after the rectification. The Environmental Protection Bureau of Liangzhou District gave no reply and organized no testing. On April 17 of the same year, Dynamic Bar filed an application with the Environmental Protection Bureau of Wuwei City for reconsideration of the aforesaid written decision on ordering Dynamic Bar to correct its illegal activity as issued by the Environmental Protection Bureau of Liangzhou District. The reconsideration organ did not accept the application for reconsideration on the ground that it exceeded the prescribed time limit. Therefore, Dynamic Bar filed a lawsuit with the court against the Environmental Protection Bureau of Liangzhou District and requested the court to revoke the aforesaid written decision on ordering Dynamic Bar to correct its illegal activity. | | 甘肃省武威市凉州区环境保护局（以下简称区环保局）接到其辖区陆羽茶楼对动感酒吧环境噪声污染的投诉后，组织环境检查执法人员和环境检测人员先后于2012年11月23日、12月20日和12月22日22时零5分至23时零5分，对动感酒吧环境噪声及环境噪声污染防治情况实施了现场检查（勘查）和采样检测，其夜间场界4个检测点环境噪声排放值分别达到58. 9dB （A）；55. 4dB （A）；52. 9dB（A）；56.9dB （A）；均超过国家《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》（GB22337-2008）规定的环境噪声排放标准。区环保局于2012年12月22日制作了检测报告，认定动感酒吧夜间噪声达58.9分贝，超过国家规定的排放标准，其行为违反了《中华人民共和国环境噪声污染防治法》第四十三条第二款规定，并依据该法第五十九条规定，于2013年1月18日对动感酒吧作出责令改正违法行为决定书：责令其立即停止超标排放环境噪声的违法行为，限于2013年2月28日前，采取隔音降噪措施进行整改，并于2013年2月28日前将改正情况书面报告。动感酒吧于2013年2月27日向区环保局提交了防噪音处理报告及申请，证明其已整改，同时申请对整改后的噪音再次测试，区环保局未予答复，也未再组织测试；同年4月17日，动感酒吧就区环保局于1月18日作出的上述责令改正违法行为决定书向武威市环保局申请复议，复议机关以逾期为由不予受理。遂以区环保局为被告，诉请法院撤销上述责令改正违法行为决定书。 |
| (2) Judgment | | （二）裁判结果 |
| After the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Liangzhou District, Wuwei City held that: The defendant, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Liangzhou District, had legal law enforcement qualification and the law enforcement procedure was legitimate. The Standard for the Emission of Environmental Noise in Social Life as applied in the testing report of the defendant and the Environmental Quality Standard for Noise as mentioned by the plaintiff were two different standards as provided for by laws. The former was an emission standard for the management, evaluation, and control of equipment and facilities that emitted noise to the environment in operating cultural and entertainment centers and business activities; and the latter was an environmental quality standard for the evaluation and management of the environmental quality of noise. The manners and methods adopted by the defendant to test noise were not contrary to law and its testing result was legal and valid. Therefore, the People's Court of Liangzhou District rendered a judgment to affirm the written decision on ordering Dynamic Bar to correct its illegal activity as issued by the defendant. After Dynamic Bar appealed, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuwei City held in the review of second instance that: The emission of environmental noise and the environmental noise pollution by the appellee in its night operations have exceeded the limit as prescribed in the Standard for the Emission of Environmental Noise in Social Life and the activity of the appellee has violated the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 43 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Prevention and Control of Pollution from Environmental Noise that “operators and managers of cultural and entertainment centers must take effective measures to keep noise at the boundary from exceeding the limits as set by the State on the emission of environmental noise.” The original judgment was clear in fact finding and proper in the application of law. Therefore, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuwei City rendered a judgment to dismiss the appeal and affirm the original judgment. | | 武威市凉州区人民法院一审认为，被告区环保局执法主体资格、执法程序合法。被告的检测报告所适用的检测标准（《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》）与原告所述的检测标准（《标准声环境质量标准》）是法律规定的二个不同的标准，前者是适用于对营业性文化娱乐场所、商业经营活动中使用的向环境排放噪声的设备、设施的管理、评价与控制的排放标准，后者是适用于声环境质量评价与管理的环境质量标准，被告检测噪音的方式方法并不违背法律规定，其检测结果合法有效，遂判决维持被告作出的责令改正违法行为决定书。动感酒吧上诉后，武威市中级人民法院二审认为，被上诉人在夜间经营期间环境噪声排放及环境噪声污染噪声已超过《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》规定限度，其行为违反了《中华人民共和国环境噪声污染防治法》第四十三条第二款“经营中的文化娱乐场所，其经营管理者必须采取有效措施，使其边界噪声不超过国家规定的环境噪声排放标准”的规定，原判认定事实清楚，适用法律准确，判决驳回上诉、维持原判。 |
| (3) Significance | | （三）典型意义 |
| For the frequently-occurring phenomena of noise nuisance to the people in social life, where an administrative lawsuit is raised after the environmental protection authority has made legal and moderate disposal according to complaints of the people, the people's court shall support the legal administrative act of the environmental protection authority according to the law. Unlike the handling of civil acts between specific infringers and the infringed and the corresponding compensation in civil trials, administrative trials are conducive to protecting the interests of groups suffering from pollutions and promoting the improvement of the living environment of the people by means of supervising the environmental protection authority's performance of environmental protection duties, supporting legal administrative acts, and supervising and correcting illegal administrative acts; and this is the significance of this case. The significance of this case also lies in that the people's court has specified the application scope of noise-related standards in law enforcement by means of a judgment. The Environmental Quality Standard for Noise, the Standard for the Emission of Environmental Noise in Social Life, and the Standard for the Emission of Environmental Noise at the Boundary of an Industrial Enterprise as issued for implementation by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine on October 1, 2008 are important bases for environmental testing personnel and law enforcement officers in the supervision and administration of noise. The former is an environmental quality standard and the latter two are emission standards and these three standards are different in aspects of application scope, testing methods, and limits. Therefore, a standard should be properly selected according to the testing objects, purposes, and other factors. The judgment of this case properly differentiates the application scopes of the Environmental Quality Standard for Noise and the Standard for the Emission of Environmental Noise in Social Life and is of demonstration effect on the environmental protection authorities' proper law enforcement and the people's courts' trial of similar administrative cases. | | 本案典型意义在于：对于社会生活中经常发生的噪声扰民现象，环保机关针对群众投诉作出合法适度处理后引发的行政诉讼，人民法院应当依法给予支持。与民事审判处理特定侵权者、受害者之间民事行为及相关赔偿不同，行政审判通过监督环保机关履行保护环境职责，对合法行政行为给予支持，对违法行政行为监督纠正，有利于保护受污染群体的利益，促进人民群众生活环境的改善。本案重要意义还体现于，人民法院以裁判方式明确了噪声相关标准执法适用范围。由国家环境保护部、国家质量监督检验检疫总局2008年10月1日发布施行的《声环境质量标准》、《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》和《工业企业厂界环境噪声排放标准》，是环境检测、执法人员进行噪声监管的重要依据。前一项是环境质量标准，后两项是排放标准，它们的适用范围、检测方法及限值等均有不同，应根据检测对象及目的等因素作出正确选择。本案判决对《声环境质量标准》、《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》的适用范围作了正确区分，对环保机关正确执法和人民法院审理类似行政案件具有示范作用。 |
| 3. Haili International Golf Co., Ltd. v. State Oceanic Administration (an administrative penalty case regarding environmental protection) | | 三、海丽国际高尔夫球场有限公司诉国家海洋局环保行政处罚案 |
| (1) Basic Facts | | （一）基本案情 |
| Haili International Golf Co., Ltd. in Haifeng County, Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as “Haili Company”) and the People's Government of Haifeng County (hereinafter referred to as the “County Government”) concluded a contract, which stipulated that “Scope of Land Expropriation: The coastal beach on the south and the sea surface extended outward by one kilometer shall be granted to Party B as the auxiliary tourism facility of this Project.” Haili Company constructed the curved dike dam involved in the sea areas south of the Haili International Golf Five-Star Hotel in Hongyuan District, Houmen Township, Haifeng County. On March 9, 2009, the curved dike dam involved was partially formed. On March 19, 2010, the maritime surveillance authority found in the law enforcement inspection that the Company constructed the curved dike dam involved without obtaining a sea area use license and the Company was suspected of violating the provisions of Article 3 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of Sea Areas (hereinafter referred to as the “Law on Sea Areas”). After being reported level by level, it was placed on file for investigation by the State Oceanic Administration. In March 2011, upon entrustment of the maritime surveillance authority, the South China Sea Marine Engineering Surveying Center issued a Technical Report on the Measurement of Reclamation Area in the Sea Areas of the Project of Curved Dike Dam along the Coastline of Haili International Golf in Haifeng County, Shanwei City, which indicated that the curved dike dam involved reclaimed land and formed a water-proof structure (dike dam) with the foot area of 0.1228 hectares. | | 广东省海丰县海丽国际高尔夫球场有限公司（以下简称海丽公司）与海丰县人民政府（以下简称县政府）签订合同约定“征地范围南边的临海沙滩及向外延伸一公里海面给予乙方作为该项目建设旅游的配套设施”。海丽公司在海丰县后门镇红源管区海丽国际高尔夫球场五星级酒店以南海域进行涉案弧形护堤的建设。2009年3月9日，涉案弧形护堤部分形成。2010年3月19日，海监部门在执法检查中发现该公司未取得海域使用权证擅自建设涉案弧形护堤，涉嫌违反《中华人民共和国海域使用管理法》（以下简称《海域法》）第三条的规定。经逐级上报，国家海洋局立案审查。2011年3月，南海勘察中心受海监部门委托作出《汕尾市海丰县海丽国际高尔夫球场海岸线弧形护堤工程海域使用填海面积测量技术报告》，指出涉案弧形护堤填海形成非透水构筑物（堤坝），面积为0.1228公顷。 |
| On June 2, 2011, the State Oceanic Administration issued a Written Notice on the Hearing of Administrative Penalty and informed Haili Company of the penalty to be imposed on it, the facts, and the legal basis. After holding a hearing on December 14 of the same year, the State Oceanic Administration issued the No. 12 Decision on Administrative Penalty, which determined that without the approval of the competent authority, Haili Company conducted the construction of the curved dike dam involved from mid-March 2010, engaged in reclamation activities by means of directly stacking gravel in the sea, and the area of the reclaimed dike dam was 0.1228 hectares until November 17, 2010, the date when the technical entity conducted the measurement. Therefore, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Law on Sea Areas and the Notice of the Ministry of Finance and the State Oceanic Administration on Strengthening the Administration of Collection of Sea Waters Use Fees, the State Oceanic Administration ordered the Company to return the illegally-occupied sea areas and restore the sea areas to the original state, and imposed a fine of 828,900 yuan on the Company, which was 15 times of the sea waters use fees that should be paid during the period of illegal occupation of such sea areas. Haili Company refused to accept it and filed an application for administrative reconsideration. On May 30, 2012, the State Oceanic Administration issued an administrative reconsideration decision and held that: the construction of the curved dike dam involved by Haili Company from mid-March 2010 as determined in the No. 12 Decision on Administrative Penalty was inconsistent with the existing situations of the curved dike dam involved in 2009 as shown in the aerial photograph of the maritime surveillance authority, which was unclear in fact finding. Therefore, the State Oceanic Administration decided to revoke the No. 12 Decision on Administrative Penalty. After performing such procedures as notification of a hearing and holding of the hearing, the State Oceanic Administration issued a written administrative penalty decision (No. 003 [2012], Seventh Detachment, China Maritime Surveillance), indicating that evidence showed that the curved dike dam involved was partially formed on March 9, 2009 and the sea area illegally occupied by the curved dike dam was 0.1228 hectares until November 17, 2010, the date when the maritime surveillance authority entrusted a technical institution with conducting an on-site measurement; and the penalty basis and specific contents were identical to those of the aforesaid No. 12 Decision on Administrative Penalty. Haili Company refused to accept the written administrative penalty decision (No. 003 [2012], Seventh Detachment, China Maritime Surveillance) and requested the court to revoke it. | | 2011年6月2日，国家海洋局作出《行政处罚听证告知书》，告知海丽公司拟对其作出的处罚及事实和法律依据，经组织召开听证会，同年12月14日作出第12号行政处罚决定：认定海丽公司在未经有权机关批准的情况下，自2010年3月中旬进行涉案弧形护堤工程建设，以在海中直接堆筑碎石的方式进行填海活动，至2010年11月17日技术单位测量之日，填成弧形护堤面积为0.1228公顷。据此，依据《海域法》有关规定和《财政部、国家海洋局关于加强海域使用金征收管理的通知》，责令该公司退还非法占用的海域，恢复海域原状，并处非法占用海域期间内该海域面积应缴纳的海域使用金15倍的罚款人民币82.89万元。该公司不服，申请行政复议。国家海洋局于2012年5月30日作出行政复议决定认为：第12号处罚决定关于海丽公司自2010年3月中旬进行涉案弧形护堤建设的认定与海监部门航空照片显示涉案弧形护堤2009年已存在的情况不一致，系认定事实不清，决定撤销第12号处罚决定。其后，国家海洋局经履行听证告知、举行听证会等程序， 于2012年7月25日作出海监七处罚（2012）003号行政处罚决定书，指出证据显示2009年3月9日涉案弧形护堤已部分形成，至2010年11月17日海监机构委托技术单位进行现场测量之日，该弧形护堤非法占用海域的面积为0.1228公顷；处罚依据与具体内容与上述12号处罚决定相同。海丽公司不服，提起行政诉讼，请求法院撤销海监七处罚（2012）003号行政处罚决定书。 |
| (2) Judgment | | （二）裁判结果 |
| After the trial of first instance, the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality held that: It was specified in the relevant provisions of the Interim Provisions on the Administration of Use of National Sea Waters and the Provisions of Guangdong Province on the Administration of Use of Sea Areas that any entity or individual must legally obtain the right to use sea areas before conducting land reclamation and other activities of occupying sea areas and the sea area use license as issued by the oceanic administrative department was the credential of the party for the legal use of sea areas. In this case, the activities of Haili Company of reclaiming land and constructing the curved dike dam without obtaining the right to use sea areas upon approval fell under the circumstances of land reclamation activities of illegally occupying sea areas without approval as mentioned in Article 42 of the Law on Sea Areas. There was sufficient evidence for the finding of facts of this part in the sued administrative penalty decision and the determination of nature was proper. The argument of Haili Company that the curved dike dam involved was not constructed within the scope of sea areas and thus the State Oceanic Administration did not have jurisdiction lacked factual basis. And its argument that the contract concluded between it and the County Government may serve as the certificate proving that it has obtained the right to use sea areas lacked legal basis. Therefore, the Court rendered a judgment to dismiss the claim of Haili Company. After Haili Company appealed, the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality rendered a judgment to dismiss the appeal and affirm the original judgment. | | 北京市第一中级人民法院一审认为，《国家海域使用管理暂行规定》《广东省海域使用管理规定》等有关规定明确了任何单位或个人实施填海等占用海域的行为均必须依法取得海域使用权，海洋行政主管部门颁发的海域使用权证书是当事人合法使用海域的凭证。本案中，海丽公司未经批准合法取得海域使用权，填海建设弧形护堤的行为，属于《海域法》第四十二条所指未经批准非法占用海域进行填海活动的情形，被诉处罚决定中的该部分认定证据充分，定性准确。海丽公司关于涉案弧形护堤并非建设于海域范围，故国家海洋局无管辖权的诉讼理由，缺乏事实依据，其关于海丰县政府与其签订的合同可以作为其取得海域使用权证明的诉讼理由，缺乏法律依据，遂判决驳回该公司的诉讼请求。海丽公司上诉后，北京市高级人民法院判决驳回上诉，维持原判。 |
| (3) Significance | | （三）典型意义 |
| The people's court's exercise of administrative trial functions and roles has given strong support to the maritime administrative department in its implementation of supervision and administration according to the law and has effectively protected the marine ecological environment. It is clearly presented at the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee that the system for the supervision and administration of natural resources should be improved and restrictive measures should be implemented in overload areas of marine resources. Sea areas are owned by the State. No entity or individual may misappropriate, trade or illegally transfer sea areas by other means without legally obtaining the sea area use license as issued by the competent authority; otherwise, it or he should be punished accordingly. In this case, although the County Government concluded a contract with Haili Company and permitted it to use the sea areas involved, it was still necessary for Haili Company to legally file an application with the oceanic administrative department at or above the county level at the place where the project was located and report it level by level according to the approval power as prescribed in Article 11 of the Provisions of Guangdong Province on the Administration of Use of Sea Areas and then the oceanic administrative department at the same level of the approval authority granted it a sea area use license. The handling of this case is of positive demonstration significance in clarifying the statutory authorities of local governments and oceanic administrative departments and guiding the corresponding administrative law enforcement and justice; and this is the significance of this case. | | 本案典型意义在于：人民法院通过发挥行政审判职能作用，有力地支持了海洋行政主管部门依法实施监督管理，切实保护海洋生态环境。党的十八届三中全会明确提出了完善自然资源监管体制，对海洋资源超载区域等实行限制性措施。海域属于国家所有，任何单位和个人在未依法取得有权机关颁发的海域使用权证书的情况下，不得侵占、买卖或者以其他形式非法转让海域，否则要受到相应的处罚。本案中，虽然海丰县政府与海丽公司签订了合同，允许其使用涉案海域，但依照海域法等有关规定，该公司仍需依法向项目所在地县以上海洋行政主管部门提出申请，并按照《广东省海域使用管理规定》第十一条规定的批准权限逐级上报，由批准机关的同级海洋行政主管部门发给海域使用证。本案的处理对于厘清地方政府与海洋行政主管部门的法定职权，对于相关行政执法和司法实践有着积极示范意义。 |
| 4. Lu Hong and Other 203 Persons v. Environmental Protection Bureau of Xiaoshan District of Hangzhou City (an administrative licensing case regarding environmental protection) | | 四、卢红等204人诉杭州市萧山区环境保护局环保行政许可案 |
| (1) Basic Facts | | （一）基本案情 |
Due to the construction needs of the project of transformation and south extension of Fengqing Avenue involved, Hangzhou Xiaoshan Urban Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Urban Investment Company,” the third party in the original trial) entrusted Zhejiang Industrial Environmental Protection Design & Research Institute Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Zhejiang Environmental Protection Design Institute”) with conducting an environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) of the project. In the process of preparing the EIA report involved, Urban Investment Company publicized twice such contents as basic information on the project involved, possible impacts on the surrounding environment, countermeasures and measures for preventing or mitigating adverse environmental impacts, and key points of the EIA conclusion in the areas involved in the construction project. The Zhejiang Environmental Protection Design Institute conducted a public investigation by means of distributing individual questionnaires and group questionnaires. On April 20, 2012, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou City (hereinafter referred to as the “Environmental Protection Bureau of Xiaoshan District”), Urban Investment Company, the Zhejiang Environmental Protection Design Institute, and experts invited held a meeting on the technical review of the report on the EIA of the project involved and formed review opinions. On April 23 of the same year, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Xiaoshan District pasted the Publicity for the Environmental Protection Approval of the project involved in the bulletin board of the hall of the Service Center of Xiaoshan District, effective from April 23 to May 7, 2012, ten workdays in total. The publicity contents mainly included: basic information on the project involved; possible impacts of the project involved on the environment; countermeasures and measures for preventing or mitigating adverse environmental impacts; key points of the EIA conclusion; and contact information of the construction entity, the EIA entity, and the approval entity, and it was indicated that telephone and letter were the means for soliciting opinions. On May 29, 2012, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Xiaoshan District, Urban Investment Company, Zhejiang Environmental Protection Design Institute, and experts invited held a meeting on the technical re-examination of the report on the EIA of the project involved (draft for reviewer-examination) and formed re-examination opinions. In June 2012, the Zhejiang Environmental Protection Design Institute formed the draft for approval of the report on the EIA of the project involved. On June 28 of the same year, Urban Investment Company submitted the report on the EIA of the project involved and other relevant application materials to the Environmental Protection Bureau of Xiaoshan District for approval. On the same day, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Xiaoshan District issued the Letter on Examination Opinions of the Report on the EIA of the Project of Transformation and South Extension (Jincheng Road to Xianghu Road) of Fengqing Avenue (hereinafter referred to as the “Letter on Examination Opinions”) and approved the implementation of the project within the area with planning permission in Xiaoshan District.
．．．．．． | | 杭州萧山城市建设投资集团有限公司（以下简称城投公司，原审第三人）因涉案风情大道改造及南伸项目建设需要，委托浙江省工业环保设计研究院有限公司（以下简称“省环保设计院”）对该项目进行环境影响评价。在涉案环评报告书编制过程中，城投公司分别在建设项目所涉区域对案涉项目的基本情况及其对周边环境可能造成的影响、预防或减轻不良环境影响的对策和措施、环境影响评价结论要点等内容进行了两次公示。省环保设计院通过发放个人调查表和团体调查表的方式进行了公众调查。2012年4月20日，杭州市萧山区环境保护局（以下简称区环保局）与城投公司、省环保设计院和邀请的专家召开了涉案项目环境影响报告书技术评审会并形成评审意见。同年4月23日，区环保局在区办事服务中心大厅的公示栏内张贴案涉项目的《环保审批公示》。公示期间为2012年4月23日至同年5月7日，共10个工作日。公示内容主要为：涉案项目基本情况；涉案项目对环境可能造成的影响；预防或减轻不良环境影响的对策和措施；环境影响评价结论要点；建设单位、环评单位及审批单位的联系方式，并注明征求意见的方式是电话和信件。2012年5月29日，区环保局与城投公司、省环保设计院和邀请的专家召开案涉环评报告书（复审稿）技术复审评审会并形成复审意见。2012年6月，省环保设计院形成环评报告书的送审稿。同年6月28日，城投公司向区环保局报送该环评报告书及相关的申请材料，申请对该环评报告书予以批准。区环保局于同日作出《关于风情大道改造及南伸（金城路-湘湖路）工程环境影响报告书审查意见的函》（以下简称《审查意见函》），同意该项目在萧山规划许可的区域内实施。
．．．．．． |
|
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 【￥1600.00】 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
|
| | | |
| | | |