|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Model Cases of Guaranteeing the Reform of the System of Compensation for Ecological and Environmental Damage by the People's Courts Published by the Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院发布人民法院保障生态环境损害赔偿制度改革典型案例 |
| (June 5, 2019) | | （2019年6月5日） |
| Table of Contents of Model Cases of Guaranteeing the Reform of the System of Compensation for Ecological and Environmental Damage by the People's Courts | | 人民法院保障生态环境损害赔偿制度改革典型案例目录 |
| I. Department of Ecological Environment of Shandong Province v. Shandong Jincheng Heavy Oil Chemical Engineering Co., Ltd., and Shandong Hongju New Energy Co., Ltd. (A dispute over compensation for ecological and environmental damage) | | 一、山东省生态环境厅诉山东金诚重油化工有限公司、山东弘聚新能源有限公司生态环境损害赔偿诉讼案 |
| II. People's Government of Chongqing Municipality and Chongqing Liangjiang Volunteer Service Center v. Chongqing Cangjinge Real Estate Management Co., Ltd. and Chongqing Shouxu Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. (A dispute over compensation for ecological and environmental damage) | | 二、重庆市人民政府、重庆两江志愿服务发展中心诉重庆藏金阁物业管理有限公司、重庆首旭环保科技有限公司生态环境损害赔偿诉讼案 |
| III. Case of Judicial Confirmation of an Agreement on Compensation for Ecological and Environmental Damage Concluded by People's Government of Guizhou Province, Xifeng Chengcheng Labor Service Co., Ltd., and Guiyang Kailin Chemical Fertilizer Co., Ltd. | | 三、贵州省人民政府、息烽诚诚劳务有限公司、贵阳开磷化肥有限公司生态环境损害赔偿协议司法确认案 |
| IV. Case of Judicial Confirmation of an Agreement on Compensation for Ecological and Environmental Damage Concluded by the Environmental Protection Bureau of Shaoxing City, Zhejiang Shangfeng Building Materials Co., Ltd., and People's Government of Ciwu Township, Zhuji City | | 四、绍兴市环境保护局、浙江上峰建材有限公司、诸暨市次坞镇人民政府生态环境损害赔偿协议司法确认案 |
| V. Ecological Environment Bureau of Guiyang City v. Guizhou Liupanshui Shuangyuan Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd., Ruan Zhenghua, and Tian Jinfang (A dispute over compensation for ecological and environmental damage) | | 五、贵阳市生态环境局诉贵州省六盘水双元铝业有限责任公司、阮正华、田锦芳生态环境损害赔偿诉讼案 |
| I. Department of Ecological Environment of Shandong Province v. Shandong Jincheng Heavy Oil Chemical Engineering Co., Ltd., and Shandong Hongju New Energy Co., Ltd. (A dispute over compensation for ecological and environmental damage) | | 一、山东省生态环境厅诉山东金诚重油化工有限公司、山东弘聚新能源有限公司生态环境损害赔偿诉讼案 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| In August 2015, Shandong Hongju New Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Hongju Company”) authorized personnel unqualified for disposal of hazardous waste with dumping 640 tons of spent acid solution it produced to an abandoned coal pit located in Shanggao Village, Puji Sub-district, Zhangqiu District, Jinan City. On October 20, 2015, Shandong Jincheng Heavy Oil Chemical Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jincheng Company”) dumped 23.7 tons of spent lye it produced to the same coal pit by taking the same method. Due to severe chemical reaction between spent acid solution and spent lye, four personnel suspected of committing the illegal discharge died from poisoning on the scene. It was found upon monitoring that the spent liquor caused pollution of pit walls and bottom as well as underground water. After the occurrence of the incident, the former People's Government of Zhangqiu City conducted emergency disposal and carried out the ecological environmental restoration. The People's Government of Shandong Province designated the Department of Ecological Environment of Shandong Province as the undertaking department to claim compensation for ecological and environmental damage. Upon negotiation, the Department of Ecological Environment of Shandong Province failed to reach a consensus with Jincheng Company and Hongju Company. Therefore, in accordance with the Environmental Damage Assessment Report issued by the Shandong Academy of Environmental Sciences Co., Ltd. (“SAES”), the Department of Ecological Environment of Shandong Province filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Jinan City and requested the Court to order that defendants should bear the emergency disposal expenses, the loss of ecological environment service functions, and the compensation for ecological and environmental damage, over CNY230 million in total, both defendants should assume joint and several liability for the aforesaid expenses, and both defendants should extend a formal apology in media at the provincial level or above. | | 2015年8月，弘聚公司委托无危险废物处理资质的人员将其生产的640吨废酸液倾倒至济南市章丘区普集街道办上皋村的一个废弃煤井内。2015年10月20日，金诚公司采取相同手段将其生产的23.7吨废碱液倾倒至同一煤井内，因废酸、废碱发生剧烈化学反应，4名涉嫌非法排放危险废物人员当场中毒身亡。经监测，废液对井壁、井底土壤及地下水造成污染。事件发生后，原章丘市人民政府进行了应急处置，并开展生态环境修复工作。山东省人民政府指定山东省生态环境厅为具体工作部门，开展生态环境损害赔偿索赔工作。山东省生态环境厅与金诚公司、弘聚公司磋商未能达成一致，遂根据山东省环境保护科学研究设计院出具的《环境损害评估报告》向济南市中级人民法院提起诉讼，请求判令被告承担应急处置费用、生态环境服务功能损失、生态环境损害赔偿费用等共计2.3亿余元，两被告对上述各项费用承担连带责任，并请求判令两被告在省级以上媒体公开赔礼道歉。 |
| [Judgment] | | 【裁判结果】 |
| The Intermediate People's Court of Jinan City held upon trial that the spent acid solution generated in the production process of Hongju Company and the spent lye generated in the production process of Jincheng Company caused ecological and environmental damage in the site involved and they should assume the liability of compensation for ecological and environmental damage. With respect to the amount of compensation claimed by the Department of Ecological Environment of Shandong Province, the Department of Ecological Environment of Shandong Province submitted the Environmental Damage Assessment Report, the relevant assessment and review personnel participating in the preparation of the aforesaid Report accepted the inquires of the parties, experts from the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning appeared in court and made an explanation, and Jincheng Company and Hongju Company failed to produce sufficient evidence to overturn the Environmental Damage Assessment Report. Therefore, the appraisal and assessment opinions should be legally admitted. The loss of ecological environment service functions, the expenses arising from restoration of polluted soil and underground water within the scope of curtain grouting as well as the appraisal costs and lawyer's fee claimed by the Department of Ecological Environment of Shandong Province were all incurred from the ecological and environmental damage caused by the spent acid solution generated by Hongju Company and the spent lye generated by Jincheng Company. Therefore, they should be borne by the two companies. Since the spent acid solution and the spent lye were hazardous spent liquor of different categories and the discharge volumes of them in the site involved were different, the Department of Ecological Environment of Shandong Province, Hongju Company, Jincheng Company, expert assistants, and consultant experts had different opinions and the Environmental Damage Assessment Report did not make a clear differentiation. By taking into full account of opinions of expert assistants and consultant experts, the Court decided that Hongju Company should assume 80% of compensatory liability and Jincheng Company should assume 20% of compensatory liability and determined various expenses both defendants should compensate based on such proportions. The hazardous spent liquor generated in the production process of Hongju Company and Jincheng Company caused environmental protection and seriously damaged the national interests and public interests. For the purposes of warning and educating environmental polluters and enhancing the public awareness of environmental protection, the Court legally supported the claim of the Department of Ecological Environment of Shandong Province that Hongju Company and Jincheng Company should extend a public apology in the media at the provincial level or above. | | 济南市中级人民法院经审理认为，弘聚公司生产过程中产生的废酸液和金诚公司生产过程中产生的废碱液导致案涉场地生态环境损害，应依法承担生态环境损害赔偿责任。就山东省生态环境厅请求的赔偿金额，山东省生态环境厅提交了《环境损害评估报告》，参与制作的相关评估及审核人员出庭接受了当事人的质询，环境保护部环境规划院的专家也出庭对此给出说明，金诚公司、弘聚公司未提供充分证据推翻该《环境损害评估报告》，故对鉴定评估意见依法予以采信。山东省生态环境厅主张的生态环境服务功能损失和帷幕注浆范围内受污染的土壤、地下水修复费及鉴定费和律师代理费，均是因弘聚公司的废酸液和金诚公司的废碱液造成生态环境损害引起的，故应由该两公司承担。因废酸液和废碱液属不同种类危险废液，二者在案涉场地的排放量不同，对两种危险废液的污染范围、污染程度、损害后果及其与损害后果之间的因果关系、污染修复成本等，山东省生态环境厅、弘聚公司、金诚公司、专家辅助人、咨询专家之间意见不一，《环境损害评估报告》对此也未明确区分。综合专家辅助人和咨询专家的意见，酌定弘聚公司承担80%的赔偿责任，金诚公司承担20%的赔偿责任，并据此确定二被告应予赔偿的各项费用。弘聚公司、金诚公司生产过程中产生的危险废液造成环境污染，严重损害了国家利益和社会公共利益，为警示和教育环境污染者，增强公众环境保护意识，依法支持山东省生态环境厅要求弘聚公司、金诚公司在省级以上媒体公开赔礼道歉的诉讼请求。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| This is a case of compensation for ecological and environmental damage caused by a major and emergent environmental incident. After the occurrence of the pollution incident, it has arisen extensive concerns. Since the time, categories, and volumes of pollutants discharged by both defendants are different, it is difficult to determine the pollution scope and the damage consequences caused by acts of the defendants as well as the corresponding control expenses. The people's court has fully resorted to the professional and technical advantages of experts and made active explorations in finding facts related to technical expertise, determining the amount of compensation for ecological and environmental damage, and dividing liabilities of the polluters. First, plaintiff and defendants separately applied for expert assistants' appearance in court to fully give opinions on professional problems involved in the case facts from the perspective of technical expertise. Second, the experts participating in the issuance of the Environmental Damage Assessment Report appeared in court to make statements and accept inquiries. Third, the people's court invited three other consultant experts to participate in the court trial and after the court trial, they issued the Expert Advisory Opinions on the Division of Liabilities for Damage Compensation. Fourth, on the basis of the Assessment Report, by taking into full account of opinions of expert assistants and consultant experts and according to subjective faults, business operation state, and other factors, the people's court reasonably distributed the compensation liabilities that should be assumed by both defendants. With respect to the amount of compensation that should be paid by Jincheng Company, the people's court determined that Jincheng Company may apply for installment payment, educated and guided the enterprise in legal production and operation. The practice of the people's court not only guaranteed the timely restoration of the ecological environment, but maintained the normal operation of the enterprise and properly handled the dialectical relationship between economic and social development and ecological environment protection. At the same time, after accepting a lawsuit of compensation for ecological and environmental damage and a civil environmental public interest lawsuit arising from the same act of environmental pollution, the people's court first suspended the trial of the environmental public interest lawsuit and after the completion of trial of the lawsuit of compensation for ecological and environmental damage, it legally entered a judgment for claims in the environmental public interest lawsuit not covered in the lawsuit of compensation for ecological and environmental damage. The people's court has made helpful explorations to proper coordination in the trial of these two categories of cases. | | 本案系因重大突发环境事件导致的生态环境损害赔偿案件。污染事件发生后，受到社会广泛关注。因二被告排放污染物的时间、种类、数量不同，认定二被告各自行为所造成的污染范围、损害后果及相应的治理费用存在较大困难。人民法院充分借助专家专业技术优势，在查明专业技术相关事实，确定生态环境损害赔偿数额，划分污染者责任等方面进行了积极探索。一是由原、被告分别申请专家辅助人出庭从专业技术角度对案件事实涉及的专业问题充分发表意见；二是由参与《环境损害评估报告》的专业人员出庭说明并接受质询；三是由人民法院另行聘请三位咨询专家参加庭审，并在庭审后出具《损害赔偿责任分担的专家咨询意见》；四是在评估报告基础上，综合专家辅助人和咨询专家的意见，根据主观过错、经营状况等因素，合理分配二被告各自应承担的赔偿责任。人民法院还针对金诚公司应支付的赔偿款项，确定金诚公司可申请分期赔付，教育引导企业依法开展生产经营，在保障生态环境得到及时修复的同时，维护了企业的正常经营，妥善处理了经济社会发展和生态环境保护的辩证关系。同时，人民法院在受理就同一污染环境行为提起的生态环境损害赔偿诉讼和环境民事公益诉讼后，先行中止环境公益诉讼案件审理，待生态环境损害赔偿案件审理完毕后，就环境公益诉讼中未被前案涵盖的诉讼请求依法作出裁判，对妥善协调两类案件的审理进行了有益探索。 |
| [Commentator] Lv Zhongmei, professor of Tsinghua University | | 【点评专家】吕忠梅，清华大学教授 |
| [Comments] | | 【点评意见】 |
| This is a model case of compensation for ecological and environmental damage caused by a major and emergent environmental incident as prescribed in the Plan for Reforming the System of Compensation for Ecological and Environmental Damage. After accepting this case, the people's court has made helpful explorations in the finding of case facts and assumption of legal liabilities. | | 因重大突发环境事件致生态环境损害，属于《生态环境损害赔偿制度改革方案》规定的较为典型的生态环境损害赔偿案件。法院受理此案后，在案件事实认定和法律责任承担等方面都进行了有益探索。 |
| First, in terms of finding technical facts in this case, the people's court highlighted the participation of many experts, which has provided technical support to the fact-finding. Both defendants in this case successively dumped hazardous waste of different pollutant categories, volumes, and content. The consequences of ecological and environmental damage occurred due to the interaction of different substances. For this regard, plaintiff Department of Ecological Environment of Shandong Province and defendant Jincheng Company separately submitted two different expert opinions to the people's court. How the people's court identified and admitted these two opinions and reasonably distributed liabilities to be assumed by both defendants was the key in this case. The court accepting this case maximized the functions and roles of technical experts in finding professional facts. Besides notifying the parties of applying for identifiers and expert assistants' appearance in court to make statements, the court invited three consultant experts to participate in the court trial and issued advisory opinions in accordance with its functions. In this way, the court comprehensively investigated all technical issues involved in this case and provided technical support to the adoption of the expert opinions. It is worth noting that the identified professional facts and the judicially determined legal facts are not exactly the same. By applying the rule of judging a fact based on evidence, the court fully illustrated whether the expert opinions should be admitted and the grounds therefor, strengthened interpretation and reasoning in the transformation from technical judgment to legal judgment, and prepared standardized environment-related judicial papers with uniform format, complete elements, structural integrity, appropriate complexity and simplicity, strict logic, and accurate wording. | | 一是本案在技术事实查明方面突出由多方专家参与，为事实认定提供了技术支撑。此案中的二被告先后倾倒污染物种类、数量和含量均不相同的危险废物，因不同物质相互作用导致生态环境损害后果的发生。对此，原告山东省生态环境厅和被告金诚公司分别向法院提交了两份不同的鉴定意见，法院如何认定和采信进而合理分配二被告的责任承担是本案的关键所在。受案法院充分发挥技术专家在查明专业事实上的功能和作用，除通知当事人申请鉴定人员、专家辅助人出庭说明外，还依职权聘请了三位咨询专家参加庭审并出具咨询意见，较为全面的调查了本案所涉专业技术问题，为鉴定意见的采信提供了技术支持。但值得注意的是，经过鉴定的专业事实和司法认定的法律事实并非完全相同。法院应运用以证据判断事实的规则，对鉴定意见是否采信及其理由进行充分阐释，在由技术判断到法律判断的转化过程中加强释法说理，制作格式统一、要素齐全、结构完整、繁简得当、逻辑严密、用语准确的规范化环境司法裁判文书。 |
| Second, this case is of certain rationality in the determination and assumption of liabilities. For the assumption of liabilities for a tort by several persons without mental connection, by taking into full account of all evidence of this case and according to the subjective faults and business states of both defendants, and other factors, the court distributed the compensatory liabilities that should be assumed by both defendants. In terms of assumption of liabilities, considering that Jincheng Company is still normally running, the court determined that Jincheng Company may apply for installment payment. Such explorations in properly handling the relationship between the ecological environment protection and the economic and social development and striving for “win-win” have some demonstration significance. However, how the installment payment is made and how to supervise the payment of each installment payable in full amount have left great “suspense” for the subsequent enforcement. It is worth noting that the methods for assumption of liabilities are directly related to the technical, systematic, and long-term restoration of ecological and environmental damage. In adjudication documents, besides determining the methods for assumption of liabilities, preparing a scheme for ecological environmental restoration, and specifying the performance methods are vital to realizing the goal of ecological environmental protection. With reference to the helpful experience for public interest environmental lawsuits, the court has created the mode of judgment “affixed with an ecological restoration scheme” for lawsuits of compensation for ecological and environmental damage. | | 二是本案在对责任的认定和分担方式上，具有一定的合理性。法院基于无意思联络数人侵权的责任承担，在综合全案证据的基础上，根据二被告主观过错、经营状况等因素，分配二被告各自应承担的赔偿责任。在责任的承担上，考虑到金诚公司仍在正常经营，确定金诚公司可申请分期赔付，这种妥善处理生态环境保护和经济社会发展之间的关系、力争“共赢”的探索具有一定的示范意义。但对如何分期赔付以及怎样监督该企业所应支付的每期费用足额到位，为后续执行留下了较大“悬念”。值得注意的是，生态环境损害赔偿诉讼的责任承担方式因与生态环境损害恢复的技术性、系统性、长周期性直接相关，在裁判文书中认定责任承担方式的同时制作生态环境恢复方案、明确履行方式对实现生态环境保护目标至为重要，可参考环境公益诉讼案件的有益经验，创造生态环境损害赔偿诉讼的“附生态恢复方案的判决书”方式。 |
| In addition, this case has also made helpful explorations in judicial proceedings. After the occurrence of the incident of ecological and environmental damage, the social organization and plaintiff invovled filed a civil environmental public interest lawsuit and a lawsuit of compensation for ecological and environmental damage. The court docketed and accepted the lawsuits separately and suspended the trial of the civil environmental public interest lawsuit. After the completion of trial of the lawsuit of compensation for ecological and environmental damage, the court legally entered a judgment for the civil environmental public interest lawsuit, which is a new exploration in linking these two categories of judicial proceedings and rules. | | 此外，本案在诉讼程序上也进行了有益探索。生态环境损害事件发生后，社会组织和本案原告先后提起环境民事公益诉讼和生态环境损害赔偿诉讼，法院分别立案受理并中止环境民事公益诉讼案件的审理，待本案审理裁判后再就环境民事公益诉讼案件依法作出裁判，是衔接两类诉讼程序和规则的一种新探索。 |
| II. People's Government of Chongqing Municipality and Chongqing Liangjiang Volunteer Service Center v. Chongqing Cangjinge Real Estate Management Co., Ltd. and Chongqing Shouxu Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. (A dispute over compensation for ecological and environmental damage) | | 二、重庆市人民政府、重庆两江志愿服务发展中心诉重庆藏金阁物业管理有限公司、重庆首旭环保科技有限公司生态环境损害赔偿诉讼案 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
The waste water treatment facilities of Chongqing Cangjinge Real Estate Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Cangjinge Company”) were used to treat waste water generated by enterprises stationed in the Chongqing Cangjinge Electroplating Industrial Park. In December 2013, Cangjinge Company and Chongqing Shouxu Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Shouxu Company”) concluded an Entrusted Operation Agreement with a term of four years. According to the Agreement, Shouxu Company undertook the project of waste water treatment and treated waste water by using the waste water treatment facilities of Cangjinge Company. In August 2014, Cangjinge Company transformed the former tank for collection of spent acid solution to a regulating tank for waste water. During the transformation, a pipeline with the diameter of 120 mm on the sidewall of the tank was not closed and such unclosed pipeline was a concealed conduit buried underground. From September 2014, knowing that there was a pipeline in the tank that may be connected to the external environment, Shouxu Company directly discharged untreated waste water containing heavy metal to the external environment through such pipeline. In April and May 2016, during two on-site inspections on the waste water treatment station of Cangjinge Company, the law enforcement personnel identified that the industrial waste water where heavy metal exceeded the prescribed standard was directly discharged to the external environment without treatment. It was calculated that from September 1, 2014 to May 5, 2016, the illegally-discharged waste water amounted to a total of 145,624 tons. Entrusted by the People's Government of Chongqing Municipality, the Chongqing Academy of Environmental Sciences conducted a quantitative evaluation of the ecological and environmental damage by adopting the method of virtual treatment costs and the quantitative amount of ecological and environmental pollution damage caused by both defendants was CNY14.416776 million.
．．．．．． | | 藏金阁公司的废水处理设施负责处理重庆藏金阁电镀工业园园区入驻企业产生的废水。2013年12月，藏金阁与首旭公司签订为期4年的《委托运行协议》，由首旭公司承接废水处理项目，使用藏金阁公司的废水处理设备处理废水。2014年8月，藏金阁公司将原废酸收集池改造为废水调节池，改造时未封闭池壁120mm口径管网，该未封闭管网系埋于地下的暗管。首旭公司自2014年9月起，在明知池中有管网可以连通外部环境的情况下，利用该管网将未经处理的含重金属废水直接排放至外部环境。2016年4月、5月，执法人员在两次现场检查藏金阁公司的废水处理站时发现，重金属超标的生产废水未经处理便排入外部环境。经测算2014年9月1日至2016年5月5日，违法排放废水量共计145624吨。受重庆市人民政府委托，重庆市环境科学研究院以虚拟治理成本法对生态环境损害进行量化评估，二被告造成的生态环境污染损害量化数额为1441.6776万元。
．．．．．． |
|
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 【￥1000.00】 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|