>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Ten Model Cases regarding Ecological Environmental Protection Published by the Supreme People's Court [Effective]
最高人民法院发布10起生态环境保护典型案例 [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】

Ten Model Cases regarding Ecological Environmental Protection Published by the Supreme People's Court 

最高人民法院发布10起生态环境保护典型案例

(March 2, 2019) (2019年3月2日)

1. Case of Environmental Pollution by Defendant Dong Chuanqiao and Other 18 Persons 一、被告人董传桥等19人污染环境案
2. Case of Smuggling of Rare Animals by Defendant Zhuo Wen 二、被告人卓文走私珍贵动物案
3. People's Government of Shatian Township, Dongguan City v. Li Yongming (Case of dispute over liabilities arising from solid waste pollution) 三、东莞市沙田镇人民政府诉李永明固体废物污染责任纠纷案
4. Han Guochun v. Jilin Oil Field Branch of China National Petroleum Corporation (Case of dispute over liabilities arising from water pollution) 四、韩国春诉中国石油天然气股份有限公司吉林油田分公司水污染责任纠纷案
5. Changzhou Deke Chemicals Co., Ltd. v. Former Environmental Protection Department of Zhejiang Province, Former Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China, and Everbright Changzhou National High-Tech Zone Green Energy (Changzhou) Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over environmental impact assessment permission) 五、常州德科化学有限公司诉原江苏省环境保护厅、原中华人民共和国环境保护部及光大常高新环保能源(常州)有限公司环境评价许可案
6. Yang Guoxian v. Water Affairs Bureau of Sangzhi County (Case of water affairs-related administrative agreement and administrative compensation) 六、杨国先诉桑植县水利局行政协议及行政赔偿案
7. People's Government of Jiangsu Province v. Anhui Haide Chemical Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (Case of compensation for ecological environment damages) 七、江苏省人民政府诉安徽海德化工科技有限公司生态环境损害赔偿案
8. China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation v. Yamamura Glass Qinhuangdao Co., Ltd. (Civil public welfare case of air pollution liabilities) 八、中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会诉秦皇岛方圆包装玻璃有限公司大气污染责任民事公益诉讼案
9. People's Procuratorate of Tongren City v. Guizhou Yuping Xiangsheng Chemicals Co., Ltd. and Guangdong Shaoguan Woxin Trading Co., Ltd. (Civil public welfare case of soil pollution liabilities) 九、铜仁市人民检察院诉贵州玉屏湘盛化工有限公司、广东韶关沃鑫贸易有限公司土壤污染责任民事公益诉讼案
10. People's Procuratorate of Sucheng District, Suqian City, Jiangsu Province v. Agriculture Committee of Shuyang County (Administrative public welfare case of failure to perform the statutory duty of forestry supervision and administration) 十、江苏省宿迁市宿城区人民检察院诉沭阳县农业委员会不履行林业监督管理法定职责行政公益诉讼案
1. Case of Environmental Pollution by Defendant Dong Chuanqiao and Other 18 Persons 一、被告人董传桥等19人污染环境案
[Basic Facts] 【基本案情】
In February 2015, defendant Dong Chuanqiao delivered waste alkali liquor that should be disposed of by Huanghua Jindong Chemical Engineering Co., Ltd. to defendant Liu Haisheng having no disposal qualification. Afterwards, Liu Haisheng contacted defendant Liu Yonghui, who rented the parking lot of defendant Li Guizhong. Concealed sewage pipes were dug and set and connected to the urban sewer networks of Li County, Hebei Province for the discharge of waste alkali liquor. From February to May 2015, by hiring defendant Shi Yuguo and other persons, Dong Chuanqiao discharged 2,816.84 tons of waste alkali liquor to the sewage pipes they dug and set and such waste alkali liquor flew into the urban sewer networks of Li County through the sewage pipes. In the meantime, from March 2015, knowing that defendant Lou He did not have the qualification for disposal of waste hydrochloric acid, defendant Gao Guangyi and other persons still delivered the recycled waste hydrochloric acid to Lou He for disposal. Lou He then delivered such waste hydrochloric acid to defendant Zhang Suo and other persons who had no disposal qualification. Zhang Suo, Duan Qingsong, and other persons contacted Li Guizhong and they decided through consultation to discharge the waste hydrochloric acid through the concealed pipes involved located in the parking lot. On May 16 and 17, 2015, Shi Yuguo and other persons discharged over 100 tons of waste alkali liquor to the urban sewer networks through the concealed pipes involved. On the morning of May 18, Zhang Suo and other persons discharged over 30 tons of waste hydrochloric acid to the concealed pipes involved. Around 13:00 on the same day, a large volume of sewage overflowed from the parking lot and surrounding sewers and a large volume of hydrogen sulfide gas was generated, resulting in the collapse and death of victim Li Qiang who operated a restaurant in the west of the parking lot despite of emergency rescue. It was identified that hydrogen sulfide was generated in the combination of the waste alkali liquor and waste hydrochloric acid involved and it overflowed in the form of gas; and Li Qiang died from hydrogen sulfide intoxication. 2015年2月,被告人董传桥将应由黄骅市津东化工有限公司处置的废碱液交由没有资质的被告人刘海生处置。后刘海生联系被告人刘永辉租用被告人李桂钟停车场场地,挖设隐蔽排污管道,连接到河北省蠡县城市下水管网,用于排放废碱液。2015年2至5月,董传桥雇佣被告人石玉国等,将2816.84吨废碱液排放至挖设的排污管道,并经案涉暗道流入蠡县城市下水管网。同时,从2015年3月起,被告人高光义等明知被告人娄贺无废盐酸处置资质,将回收的废盐酸交由娄贺处置。娄贺又将废盐酸交由无资质的被告人张锁等人处置。张锁、段青松等人又联系李桂钟,商定在其停车场内经案涉暗道排放废盐酸。2015年5月16、17日,石玉国等人经案涉暗道排放100余吨废碱液至城市下水管网。同月18日上午,张锁等人将30余吨废盐酸排放至案涉暗道。下午1时许,停车场及周边下水道大量废水外溢,并产生大量硫化氢气体,致停车场西侧经营饭店的被害人李强被熏倒,经抢救无效死亡。经鉴定,本案废碱液与废盐酸结合会产生硫化氢,并以气体形式逸出;李强符合硫化氢中毒死亡。
[Adjudication] 【裁判结果】
In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Li County, Hebei Province held that the waste alkali liquor and waste hydrochloric acid involved were hazardous wastes listed in the Directory of National Hazardous Wastes. In violation of the state provisions, defendant Dong Chuanqiao and other persons illegally disposed of and discharged hazardous substance, which seriously polluted the environment. They have been guilty of environmental pollution. Both the illegal discharge of waste alkali liquor by Dong Chuanqiao and other persons and the illegal discharge of waste hydrochloric acid by Lou He and other persons played a decisive role in resulting in the death of Li Qiang from hydrogen sulfide intoxication and Dong Chuanqiao, Lou He, and other persons should assume the criminal liability for the death of Li Qiang. According to the criminal facts, circumstances, and social hazards, the court of first instance entered a judgment that Dong Chuanqiao and other defendants were guilty of environmental pollution and they should be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment ranging from seven years to two years in addition to a fine. In the trial of second instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Baoding City, Hebei Province sustained parts of the judgment of first instance. 河北省蠡县人民法院一审认为,案涉废碱液、废盐酸均被列入《国家危险废物名录》,属危险废物。被告人董传桥等违反国家规定,非法处置、排放有毒物质,严重污染环境。其行为均已构成污染环境罪。董传桥等人非法排放废碱液,娄贺等人非法排放废盐酸,均对李强硫化氢中毒死亡这一结果的发生起到了决定性的作用,应对李强的死亡结果承担刑事责任。根据各被告人的犯罪事实、情节和社会危害性,一审法院判决被告人董传桥等犯污染环境罪,判处有期徒刑七年至二年不等,并处罚金。河北省保定市中级人民法院二审对一审刑事判决部分予以维持。
[Typical Significance] 【典型意义】
This case is regarding death of a person caused by environmental pollution. Hazardous wastes have such hazardous characteristics as corrosivity, toxicity, ignitability, reactiveness, and infectivity. If they are improperly collected, stored, or disposed of, they will not only seriously endanger the safety of the ecological environment, but may directly endanger the human health and even lives. In recent years, illegal disposal of hazardous wastes has been a phenomenon despite repeated prohibition and environmental risks have been increasingly emerging. In the face of the significant growths in environmental pollution-related crimes, adhering to the strictest judicial system for environmental pollution and the strictest concepts of rule of law for environmental pollution, making more efforts to the punishments on environmental pollution-related crimes, and serving and guaranteeing the effective undertaking of endeavor to prevent and control pollution are major functions of a people's court in the work of trials. In this case, Dong Chuanqiao and other defendants dug and set concealed sewage pipes and discharged waste alkali liquor to the urban sewer networks and Zhang Suo and other defendants discharged waste hydrochloric acid by using the same concealed pipes, causing the especially serious consequence of one human death. The people's court has comprehensively implemented the criminal policy of combining leniency and strictness, given full play to the punishment and education functions of the trial of criminal cases involving environmental resources and in light of the criminal facts, circumstances, and social hazards of all defendants, determined the criminal liabilities of all defendants in such links as provision, transport, discharge, dumping, and disposal, and given all defendants heavier punishments. The trial and judgment of this case are of typical significance in sundering the underground industrial chain of illegal operation of hazardous wastes and deterring potential polluters. 本案系污染环境致人死亡案件。危险废物具有腐蚀性、毒性、易燃性、反应性、感染性等危险特性,收集、贮存或处置不当,不仅严重威胁生态环境安全,更可能直接危及人体健康甚至生命。近年来,非法处置危险废物现象屡禁不绝,环境风险日益凸显。面对环境污染犯罪呈现的大幅增长态势,坚持最严格的环保司法制度、最严密的环保法治理念,加大对环境污染犯罪的惩治力度,服务保障打好打赢污染防治攻坚战,是人民法院审判工作的重要职责。本案中,被告人董传桥等挖设隐蔽排污管道,将废碱液排放至城市下水管网,被告人张锁等利用同一暗道排放废盐酸,造成一人死亡的特别严重后果。人民法院全面贯彻宽严相济刑事政策,充分发挥环境资源刑事审判的惩治和教育功能,结合各被告人犯罪事实、情节和社会危害性,依法认定提供、运输、排放、倾倒、处置等环节各被告人的刑事责任,从重判处刑罚。本案的审理和判决对于斩断危险废物非法经营地下产业链条、震慑潜在的污染者具有典型意义。
2. Case of Smuggling of Rare Animals by Defendant Zhuo Wen 二、被告人卓文走私珍贵动物案
[Basic Facts] 【基本案情】
In July 2015, instigated by defendant Zhuo Wen, Li Weiwen, defendant in another case, carried two suitcases and arrived at the Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport by airplane. He entered by selecting the lane of nothing to declare and declared no item to the Customs. Upon check, customs officers seized 259 turtles from the suitcases carried by Li Weiwen. It was identified that the aforesaid turtles included 12 black pond turtles (Geoclemys under Geoemydidae) and 247 Indian roofed turtles (Kachuga under Geoemydidae), which were all protected rare animals in Appendix I to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the value thereof amounted to CNY6.475 million in total. 2015年7月,另案被告人李伟文根据被告人卓文的指使携带两个行李箱,乘坐飞机抵达广州白云机场口岸,并选择无申报通道入境,未向海关申报任何物品。海关关员经查验,从李伟文携带的行李箱内查获乌龟259只。经鉴定,上述乌龟分别为地龟科池龟属黑池龟12只、地龟科小棱背龟属印度泛棱背龟247只,均属于受《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》附录I保护的珍贵动物,价值共计647.5万元。
[Adjudication] 【裁判结果】
In the trial of first instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province held that defendant Zhuo Wen ignored the state laws, evaded customs control, and instigated another person to smuggle rare animals whose export and import were prohibited by the State and he was guilty of smuggling rare animals with particularly serious circumstances. The court of first instance entered a judgment that Zhuo Wen was guilty of smuggling rare animals and he should be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of 12 years with confiscation of his personal property of CNY200,000. The Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province sustained the judgment of first instance. 广东省广州市中级人民法院一审认为,被告人卓文无视国家法律,逃避海关监管,指使他人走私国家禁止进出口的珍贵动物入境,其行为已构成走私珍贵动物罪,且情节特别严重。一审法院判决卓文犯走私珍贵动物罪,判处有期徒刑十二年,并处没收个人财产20万元。广东省高级人民法院二审维持一审判决。
[Typical Significance] 【典型意义】
This case is of smuggling of rare animals as listed in the appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Biodiversity is essential to human survival and development and wild fauna and flora species are important components of biodiversity. When the buying stops, the killing can too. Protecting wild fauna and flora is the joint responsibility of the entire human race. As the contracting party of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, China should positively perform the international obligations as prescribed in the Convention and severely crack down on criminal offenses of smuggling endangered species. In this case, in violation of the state laws and customs regulations, defendant Zhuo Wen evaded customs control and instigated another person to enter China by illegally carrying rare animals whose export and import were prohibited by the State. The people's court legally determined that the criminal circumstances were particularly serious and Zhuo Wen was given a criminal penalty, which has demonstrated the steadfast determination of the people's court in legally and severely cracking down on and containing crimes involving wild fauna and flora resources. The trial and judgment of this case have good demonstration effects on educating and warning the public to establish the legal awareness and voluntarily protect the ecological environment especially wild fauna and flora resources. 本案系走私《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》附录所列珍贵动物的犯罪案件。生物多样性是人类生存和发展的必要条件,野生动植物种是生物多样性的重要组成部分。没有买卖,就没有杀戮。保护野生动植物是全人类的共同责任。我国作为《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》的缔约国,积极履行公约规定的国际义务,严厉打击濒危物种走私违法犯罪行为。本案中,被告人卓文违反国家法律及海关法规,逃避海关监管,指使他人非法携带国家禁止进出口的珍贵动物入境。人民法院依法认定其犯罪情节特别严重,判处刑罚,彰显了人民法院依法严厉打击和遏制破坏野生动植物资源犯罪的坚定决心。本案的审理和判决对于教育警示社会公众树立法律意识,自觉保护生态环境尤其是野生动植物资源,具有较好的示范作用。
3. People's Government of Shatian Township, Dongguan City v. Li Yongming (Case of dispute over liabilities arising from solid waste pollution) 三、东莞市沙田镇人民政府诉李永明固体废物污染责任纠纷案
[Basic Facts] 【基本案情】
As found in an effective criminal judgment, from March to May 2016, in violation of the state regulations, Li Yongming dumped about 600 tons of electroplating wastes where heavy metals exceeded the prescribed limits in 60 trucks in Nizhou Village, Shatian Township, causing serious environmental pollution. Li Yongming was guilty of environmental pollution. From July to September 2016, the People's Government of Shatian Township, Dongguan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Government of Shatian Township”) have twice authorized testing institutions to test the pollution item and paid the testing charges of CNY17,500 and CNY31,650. From August to September 2016, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Dongguan City held an expert consultation meeting and the Government of Shatian Township paid the expert review fee of CNY13,800. The Government of Shatian Township authorized the relevant enterprise to dispose of the electroplating wastes and paid a total of CNY2,941,000. In December 2016, it was confirmed upon the second testing of the polluted land involved that the content of heavy metal has met the environmental protection requirements and ecological restoration was temporarily not required. The Government of Shatian Township paid the testing charge of CNY19,200. The Government of Shatian Township authorized a law firm to serve as an agent and paid the legal service fee of CNY39,957. 生效刑事判决认定,2016年3至5月,李永明违反国家规定向沙田镇泥洲村倾倒了约60车600吨重金属超标的电镀废料,严重污染环境,其行为已构成污染环境罪。2016年7至9月,东莞市沙田镇人民政府(以下简称沙田镇政府)先后两次委托检测机构对污染项目进行检测,分别支出检测费用17500元、31650元。2016年8至9月,东莞市环境保护局召开专家咨询会,沙田镇政府为此支付专家评审费13800元。沙田镇政府委托有关企业处理电镀废料共支出2941000元。2016年12月,经对案涉被污染地再次检测,确认重金属含量已符合环保要求,暂无需进行生态修复,沙田镇政府为此支付检测费用19200元。沙田镇政府委托法律服务所代理本案,支付法律服务费39957元。
[Adjudication] 【裁判结果】
In the trial of first instance, the No. 2 People's Court of Dongguan City, Guangdong Province held that the Government of Shatian Township paid the testing charge of CNY68,350 for solid wastes at the ferry in Nizhou Village, Shatian Township, the expert review fee of CNY13,800, and the sludge disposal charge of CNY2,941,000, CNY3,023,150 in total. The Government of Shatian Township authorized qualified companies or individuals to handle the corresponding matters and submitted the qualification documents, contracts, and payment vouchers as evidence. The volume of solid wastes dumped by Li Yongming accounted for 25.6% of the total volume of solid wastes that have been disposed of by the Government of Shatian Township. Therefore, the amount of loss that should be borne by Li Yongming was CNY773,926.4 according to the proportion. The legal service fee paid by the Government of Shatian Township for this case should also be borne by Li Yongming. The Government of Shatian Township was not at fault with respect to the occurrence of the tort and the damage caused. The court of first instance entered a judgment that Li Yongming should pay the Government of Shatian Township CNY773,926.4 for the disposal of electroplating wastes, testing, and expert review and CNY39,957 for legal services. The Intermediate People's Court of Dongguan City, Guangdong Province entered a judgment of second instance that Li Yongming should pay the Government of Shatian Township CNY773,926.4 for the disposal of electroplating wastes, testing, and expert review. 广东省东莞市第二人民法院一审认为,沙田镇政府为清理沙田镇泥洲村渡口边的固体废物支出检测费用68350元、专家评审费13800元、污泥处理费2941000元,以上合计3023150元。沙田镇政府系委托具有资质的公司或个人来处理对应事务,并提交了资质文件、合同以及付款单据予以证明。李永明倾倒的固体废物数量占沙田镇政府已处理的固体废物总量的25.6%,故李永明按照比例应承担的损失数额为773926.4元。沙田镇政府为本案支出的法律服务费亦应由李永明承担。沙田镇政府对于侵权行为的发生及其损害结果均不存在过错。一审法院判决李永明向沙田镇政府赔偿电镀废料处理费、检测费、专家评审费773926.4元,法律服务费39957元。广东省东莞市中级人民法院二审判决李永明向沙田镇政府赔偿电镀废料处理费、检测费、专家评审费773926.4元。
[Typical Significance] 【典型意义】
This case is of dispute over liabilities arising from pollution caused by solid wastes. The ecological environment is a key factor in the healthy lives of the people and an important legal interest requiring the joint protection by criminal and civil laws. The facts that have been ascertained in an effective criminal judgment may serve as the basis for case-finding in a civil case if there is no contrary evidence to overturn them. The trial courts of this case have accurately applied the Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China. When punishing the crime of environmental pollution according to the law, they supported the loss of the Government of Shatian Township arising from the disposal of environmental pollution, which has highlighted the principle of “whoever pollutes the environment shall eliminate and control the pollution,” fully reflected the costs for committing environmental pollution crimes, and played good deterrent effects. This case has also played some regulatory and guiding roles in the division of responsibilities, especially in reviewing and determining whether there are any loopholes in the regulation of the local government and whether the local government disposes of environmental pollution in a timely manner. The trial and judgment of this case have played good promoting and demonstrating effects in educating enterprises and individuals to engage in production according to the law and urging the governmental departments to strengthen regulation. 本案系固体废物污染责任纠纷。生态环境是人民群众健康生活的重要因素,也是需要刑事和民事法律共同保护的重要法益。生效刑事判决审理查明的事实,在无相反证据足以推翻的情况下,可以作为民事案件认定事实的根据。本案审理法院正确适用《中华人民共和国环境保护法》,在依法惩治污染环境罪的同时,对于沙田镇政府处理环境污染产生的损失依法予以支持,体现了“谁污染、谁治理”的原则,全面反映了污染环境犯罪成本,起到了很好的震慑作用。本案对于责任的划分,特别是对地方政府是否存在监管漏洞、处理环境污染是否及时的审查判断,也起到了一定的规范、指引作用。本案的审理和判决对于教育企业和个人依法生产、督促政府部门加强监管有着较好的推动和示范作用。
4. Han Guochun v. Jilin Oil Field Branch of China National Petroleum Corporation (Case of dispute over liabilities arising from water pollution) 四、韩国春与中国石油天然气股份有限公司吉林油田分公司水污染责任纠纷案
[Basic Facts] 【基本案情】
In 1997, Han Guochun and the Baoshi Villagers' Committee concluded a Contract for the Contracting of Caogouzi. After obtaining the right to contracted management of the fishpond involved, Han Guochun engaged in aquaculture. On September 9, 2010, there was oil leakage in the Da-119 oil well of Jilin Oil Field Branch of China National Petroleum Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Jilin Branch of CNPC”) which was about 1 km away from the fishpond contracted by Han Guochun and some leaked crude oil flew into Han Guochun's fishpond with the flood. From September 14 to 19, Jilin Branch of CNPC conducted cleanup on the scene of pollution. The water quality monitoring report issued by the environmental monitoring station authorized by the Fishery Administration and Fishing Port Supervision State of Da'an City showed that the content of oil in the fishpond seriously exceeded the prescribed limits and the ambient water quality was not suitable for aquaculture. Han Guochun requested the Intermediate People's Court of Baicheng City, Jilin Province to order that Jilin Branch of CNPC should pay him CNY3,015,040.36 as compensation for his economic losses, including fish-farming losses in 2010, losses arising from fish-farming failure in 2011, and expenses arising from repairs of fishpond dams and decontamination by water injunction. 韩国春与宝石村委会于1997年签订《承包草沟子合同书》后,取得案涉鱼塘的承包经营权,从事渔业养殖。2010年9月9日,中国石油天然气股份有限公司吉林油田分公司(以下简称中石油吉林分公司)位于韩国春鱼塘约一公里的大-119号油井发生泄漏,泄漏的部分原油随洪水下泄流进韩国春的鱼塘。中石油吉林分公司于9月14日至9月19日在污染现场进行了清理油污作业。大安市渔政渔港监督管理站委托环境监测站作出的水质监测报告表明,鱼塘石油含量严重超标,水质环境不适合渔业养殖。韩国春请求法院判令中石油吉林分公司赔偿3015040.36元经济损失,包括2010年养鱼损失、2011年未养鱼损失、鱼塘围坝修复及注水排污费用。
[Adjudication] 【裁判结果】
In the trial of first instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Baicheng City, Jilin Province held that the principle of general tort accountability should apply to this case and Han Guochun failed to prove the fact of damages and the existence of causal relationship. Therefore, the Intermediate People's Court of Baicheng City should enter a judgment to dismiss Han Guochun's claims. In the trial of second instance, the Higher People's Court of Jilin Province held that Han Guochun failed to prove the occurrence of decontamination by water injunction for three times and the causal relationship among expenses arising from repairs of fishpond dams, losses arising from fish-farming failure in 2011, and pollution caused by Jilin Branch of CNPC. Therefore, the Higher People's Court of Jilin Province should commute the judgment of first instance and only support Han Guochun's claim for fish-farming losses in 2010, CNY1,058,796.25. In the retrial, the Supreme People's Court held that this case was of dispute over tortious liabilities arising from environmental pollution caused by pollution of the fishpond in the oil leakage. Han Guochun bore the burden of proof that Jilin Branch of CNPC committed pollution, the fishpond suffered damages due to the pollution, and there was relevance between the crude oil pollution and the damages. Therefore, he has performed the burden of proof; Jilin Branch of CNPC failed to prove that there was no causal relationship between its pollutant discharge and the damages suffered by Han Guochun. Therefore, it should assume the corresponding liability for damages. The discharge of pollutants was not limited to active release or introduction of pollutants and it included passive pollution accompanied by business activities of enterprises. Jilin Branch of CNPC was owner of the abandoned oil well involved. No matter whether it was at fault that the crude oil in the abondaned oil well was leaked and flew into Han Guochun's fishpond, it should assume the liability of compensation for tort damages. The flood was an important medium for the occurrence of the pollution incident and a main cause for Han Guochun's fish-farming losses in 2010. It may serve as the consideration for mitigated liability of Jilin Branch of CNPC. By taking full account of the case facts, the Supreme People's Court commuted the judgment and ordered that Jilin Branch of CNPC should pay Han Guochun CNY1,678,391.25 as compensation for his economic losses. 吉林省白城市中级人民法院一审认为,本案应适用一般侵权归责原则,韩国春未能证明损害事实及因果关系的存在,故判决驳回其诉讼请求。吉林省高级人民法院二审认为,韩国春未能证明三次注水排污事实的发生,未能证明鱼塘围坝修复费用、2011年未养鱼损失与中石油吉林分公司污染行为之间的因果关系,故仅改判支持其2010年养鱼损失1058796.25元。最高人民法院再审认为,本案系因原油泄漏使鱼塘遭受污染引发的环境污染侵权责任纠纷。韩国春举证证明了中石油吉林分公司存在污染行为,鱼塘因污染而遭受损害的事实及原油污染与损害之间具有关联性,完成了举证责任;中石油吉林分公司未能证明其排污行为与韩国春所受损害之间不存在因果关系,应承担相应的损害赔偿责任。排放污染物行为,不限于积极的投放或导入污染物质的行为,还包括伴随企业生产活动的消极污染行为。中石油吉林分公司是案涉废弃油井的所有者,无论是否因其过错导致废弃油井原油泄漏流入韩国春的鱼塘,其均应对污染行为造成的损失承担侵权损害赔偿责任。洪水系本案污染事件发生的重要媒介以及造成韩国春2010年养鱼损失的重要原因,可以作为中石油吉林分公司减轻责任的考虑因素。综合本案情况,改判中石油吉林分公司赔偿韩国春经济损失1678391.25元。
...... ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
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;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  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.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese