>>>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
 
Notice by the Supreme People's Court of Issuing the Twenty-Fourth Group of Guiding Cases [Effective]
最高人民法院关于发布第24批指导性案例的通知 [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】

Notice by the Supreme People's Court of Issuing the Twenty-Fourth Group of Guiding Cases 

最高人民法院关于发布第24批指导性案例的通知

(No. 297 [2019] of the Supreme People's Court) (法〔2019〕297号)

The higher people's courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government; Military Court of the People's Liberation Army; and Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: 各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院,解放军军事法院,新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院:
Upon deliberation and decision of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court, 13 cases (Guiding Cases No. 127-139) including 79 Persons including Lv Jinkui v. Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding Industry Co., Ltd. (marine pollution damage liability dispute) are hereby issued as the twenty fourth group of guiding cases for reference in trial of similar cases. 经最高人民法院审判委员会讨论决定,现将吕金奎等79人诉山海关船舶重工有限责任公司海上污染损害责任纠纷案等十三个案例(指导案例127-139号),作为第24批指导性案例发布,供在审判类似案件时参照。
Supreme People's Court 最高人民法院
December 26, 2019 2019年12月26日
Guiding Case No. 127 指导案例127号
79 Persons including Lv Jinkui v. Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding Industry Co., Ltd. (marine pollution damage liability dispute) 吕金奎等79人诉山海关船舶重工有限责任公司海上污染损害责任纠纷案
(Issued on December 26, 2019, as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年12月26日发布)
Keywords: civil; marine pollution damage liability; pollutant discharge standards 关键词 民事/海上污染损害责任/污染物排放标准
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
According to relevant provisions such as the Marine Environment Protection Law, “pollutants” in marine environmental pollution are not limited to substances explicitly enumerated in national or local environmental standards. If a polluter discharges wastewater containing iron and other substances not included in national or local environmental standards into the sea, causing damage to the organisms farmed by fisheries producers, the polluter shall be subject to environmental tort liability. 根据海洋环境保护法等有关规定,海洋环境污染中的“污染物”不限于国家或者地方环境标准明确列举的物质。污染者向海水水域排放未纳入国家或者地方环境标准的含有铁物质等成分的污水,造成渔业生产者养殖物损害的,污染者应当承担环境侵权责任。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
1. Articles 65 and 66 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China 1.《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第65条、第66条
2. Article 94(1) of the Marine Environment Protection Law of the People's Republic of China (2017 Amendment) (For this case, Article 95 (1) of the Marine Environment Protection Law of the People's Republic of China as amended in 2013 was applied) 2.《中华人民共和国海洋环境保护法》(2017年修正)第94条第1项(本案适用的是2013年修正的《中华人民共和国海洋环境保护法》第95条第1项)
Basic Facts 基本案情
On the morning of August 2, 2010, there appeared an anomaly in the seawater in the East China Sea at Laolongtou of Shanhaiguan, Qinhuangdao. At 11:30 on the same day, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Qinhuangdao City received a report and arranged for environmental supervision and monitoring personnel, together with the Deputy Secretary of the CPC Committee and the Secretary of the Commission for Discipline Inspection of Bohai Township, Shanhaiguan District, Qinhuangdao City, and other relevant personnel, to arrive at and inspect the coast. According to the site inspection, the seawater was reddish brown and turbid. The employees of the Environmental Protection Bureau of Qinhuangdao City sampled seawater for monitoring use and made a Monitoring Report on August 3, analyzing seawater quality, with the analysis results indicating a seawater pH of 8.28, suspended matter of 24 mg/L, petroleum of 0.082 mg/L, chemical oxygen demand of 2.4 mg/L, nitrite nitrogen of 0.032 mg/L, ammonia nitrogen of 0.018 mg/L, nitrate nitrogen of 0.223 mg/L, inorganic nitrogen of 0.273 mg/L, active phosphate of 0.006 mg/L, and iron of 13.1 mg/L. 2010年8月2日上午,秦皇岛山海关老龙头东海域海水出现异常。当日11时30分,秦皇岛市环境保护局接到举报,安排环境监察、监测人员,协同秦皇岛市山海关区渤海乡副书记、纪委书记等相关人员到达现场,对海岸情况进行巡查。根据现场巡查情况,海水呈红褐色、浑浊。秦皇岛市环境保护局的工作人员同时对海水进行取样监测,并于8月3日作出《监测报告》对海水水质进行分析,分析结果显示海水pH值8.28、悬浮物24mg/L、石油类0.082mg/L、化学需氧量2.4mg/L、亚硝酸盐氮0.032mg/L、氨氮0.018mg/L、硝酸盐氮0.223mg/L、无机氮0.273mg/L、活性磷酸盐0.006mg/L、铁13.1mg/L。
The Maritime Judicial Authentication Center of Dalian Maritime University (hereinafter referred to as the “Judicial Authentication Center”) as commissioned by the court authenticated the pollution status of the case-related sea area, the farming losses caused by the pollution, and other issues. The main contents of the Authentication Opinion: 1. Authentication of marine pollution. (1) The authenticators adopted satellite remote sensing technology and selected two images captured by the NOAA satellites at 5:44 and 9:51 Beijing Time on August 2, 2010. The 5:44 image showed a polluted seawater anomaly area of around five square kilometers in extent in the sea area in the vicinity of Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding”); and the 9:51 image showed a polluted seawater anomaly area of around ten square kilometers in extent in the sea area about four kilometers south of Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding. (2) The analysis of the pollution source, by excluding pollution accidents such as red tide and large-scale marine oil spills, determined that the polluted seawater anomaly areas showed by the satellite images were created by sewage discharge or leakage from a large enterprise. As Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding was the only large enterprise at the coast in the vicinity of Laolongtou of Shanhaiguan, the building of ships generated a large quantity of wastewater, and the rust removal wastewater with a very high iron content at shipyards would seriously pollute the nearby water area once leaked, it was inferred that the source of seawater pollution was Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding, and the leak time was between 00:00 and 04:00 Beijing Time on August 2, 2010. (3) The analysis of the polluted seawater in the farming areas determined the coordinates of the farming areas of 21 persons including Wang Lirong, marked the coordinates of the farming areas of the said parties and those of the polluted waters on an electronic chart, and reached the conclusion that the polluted waters covered all the farming areas. 2. Analysis of farming losses. The authenticators assessed the water quality environment and concluded that the suspended matter, iron, and petroleum content of the water in the case-related sea area was relatively high and in far excess of the Water Quality Standard for Fisheries and the Sea Water Quality Standard and the most polluting substance, iron, posed relatively considerable harm to fisheries and farming waters. Lv Jinguo and others were also determined to have sustained farming losses. 大连海事大学海事司法鉴定中心(以下简称司法鉴定中心)接受法院委托,就涉案海域污染状况以及污染造成的养殖损失等问题进行鉴定。《鉴定意见》的主要内容:(一)关于海域污染鉴定。1、鉴定人采取卫星遥感技术,选取NOAA卫星2010年8月2日北京时间5时44分和9时51分两幅图像,其中5时44分图像显示山海关船舶重工有限责任公司(以下简称山船重工公司)附近海域存在一片污染海水异常区,面积约5平方千米;9时51分图像显示距山船重工公司以南约4千米海域存在污染海水异常区,面积约10平方千米。2、对污染源进行分析,通过排除赤潮、大面积的海洋溢油等污染事故,确定卫星图像上污染海水异常区应由大型企业污水排放或泄漏引起。根据山船重工公司系山海关老龙头附近临海唯一大型企业,修造船舶会产生大量污水,船坞刨锈污水中铁含量很高,一旦泄漏将严重污染附近海域,推测出污染海水源地系山船重工公司,泄漏时间约在2010年8月2日北京时间00时至04时之间。3、对养殖区受污染海水进行分析,确定了王丽荣等21人的养殖区地理坐标,并将上述当事人的养殖区地理坐标和污染水域的地理坐标一起显示在电子海图上,得出污染水域覆盖了全部养殖区的结论。(二)关于养殖损失分析。鉴定人对水质环境进行评价,得出涉案海域水质中悬浮物、铁及石油类含量较高,已远远超过《渔业水质标准》和《海水水质标准》,污染最严重的因子为铁,对渔业和养殖水域危害程度较大。同时,确定吕金国等人存在养殖损失。
Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding expressed a cross-examination opinion on the farming loss part of the Authentication Opinion, mainly stating that the determination of pollution in the seawater that the iron was in excess of standards lacked a factual basis and authentication basis. (1) The authenticators assessed the water quality environment in the farming areas only based on the Monitoring Report issued by the Environmental Protection Bureau of Qinhuangdao City, but the report lacked conformity with the requirements of the Specification for Marine Monitoring in terms of format and content and analyzed the iron content by standards intended to regulate surface water, groundwater, and industrial wastewater, and the Monitoring Report was by no means probative as to the fact of pollution; and (2) the Water Quality Standard for Fisheries and the Sea Water Quality Standard employed by the Authentication Opinion did not provide for and restrict the iron content of seawater, and hence iron content was not an indicator to judge the water quality for marine fisheries. Even if iron content were an indicator, there was no standard for how much it had to reach to cause pollution damage. 山船重工公司对《鉴定意见》养殖损失部分发表质证意见,主要内容为认定海水存在铁含量超标的污染无任何事实根据和鉴定依据。1、鉴定人评价养殖区水质环境的唯一依据是秦皇岛市环境保护局出具的《监测报告》,而该报告在格式和内容上均不符合《海洋监测规范》的要求,分析铁含量所采用的标准是针对地面水、地下水及工业废水的规定,《监测报告》对污染事实无任何证明力;2、《鉴定意见》采用的《渔业水质标准》和《海水水质标准》中,不存在对海水中铁含量的规定和限制,故铁含量不是判断海洋渔业水质标准的指标。即使铁含量是指标之一,其达到多少才能构成污染损害,亦无相关标准。
As also ascertained, one of the authenticators giving the Authentication Opinion submitted an Analysis Report during court trial, mainly covering the following: 1. Introduction to the analysis method. 2. Analysis of the wastewater pollution accident in the case-related sea area. (1) Analysis and interpretation of the satellite images of the sea area in Laolongtou of Shanhaiguan. (2) Analysis of the movement and spread of polluted seawater. (3) Analysis of the pollution source. As the gray value of the polluted seawater anomaly areas in the satellite images was slightly lower than the surrounding seawater, the possibility of red tide was ruled out; and so was the possibility of marine oil spills because there was neither oil well platform in the sea area in Laolongtou of Shanhaiguan nor large ship collision or reef stranding accident around August 2. It was referred from the above that the polluted seawater area was created by the wastewater discharge or leakage from a large enterprise, Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding was the only large enterprise at the coast in the vicinity of Laolongtou of Shanhaiguan, the building of ships generated a large quantity of wastewater, and the rust removal wastewater with a relatively high iron content at shipyards would seriously pollute the nearby water area once leaked. (4) Analysis of polluted seawater in the farming areas. The coordinates of the farming areas and those of the polluted waters were marked on an electronic chart, and it was concluded that the polluted waters covered all the farming areas. 又查明,《鉴定意见》鉴定人之一在法院审理期间提交《分析报告》,主要内容:(一)介绍分析方法。(二)对涉案海域污水污染事故进行分析。1、对山海关老龙头海域卫星图像分析和解译。2、污染海水漂移扩散分析。3、污染源分析。因卫星图像上污染海水异常区灰度值比周围海水稍低,故排除海洋赤潮可能;因山海关老龙头海域无油井平台,且8月2日前后未发生大型船舶碰撞、触礁搁浅事故,故排除海洋溢油可能。据此,推测污染海水区应由大型企业污水排放或泄漏引起,山船重工公司为山海关老龙头附近临海唯一大型企业,修造船舶会产生大量污水,船坞刨锈污水中铁含量较高,向外泄漏将造成附近海域严重污染。4、养殖区受污染海水分析。将养殖区地理坐标和污染水域地理坐标一起显示在电子海图上,得出污染水域覆盖全部养殖区的结论。
Seventy-nine persons including Lv Jinkui sued in the court and requested that Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding be adjudged to pay compensation on the grounds that the large quantity of red wastewater discharged by Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding caused the death of shellfish in large quantities, making them sustain considerable economic losses. 吕金奎等79人诉至法院,以山船重工公司排放的大量红色污水造成扇贝大量死亡,使其受到重大经济损失为由,请求判令山船重工公司赔偿。
Judgment 裁判结果
On December 9, 2013, the Tianjin Maritime Court entered a Civil Judgment (No. 115 [2011], First, Maritime Court, Tianjin) that (1) the claims of 50 persons including plaintiff Lv Jinkui should be dismissed; and (2) the claims of 29 persons including plaintiff Lv Jinguo should be dismissed. After the judgment had been pronounced, the 79 persons including Lv Jinkui appealed. On November 11, 2014, the Higher People's Court of Tianjin entered a Civil Judgment (No. 22 [2014], Final, Civil Division IV, Higher Court, Tianjin) that (1) the Civil Judgment (No. 115 [2011], First, Maritime Court, Tianjin) from the Tianjin Maritime Court should be set aside; (2) Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding Industry Co., Ltd. should pay 21 persons including Wang Lirong a total of 1,377,696 yuan as compensation for their farming loss within 15 days of serving this judgment; and (3) the other claims of the 79 people including Lv Jinkui should be dismissed. 天津海事法院于2013年12月9日作出(2011)津海法事初字第115号民事判决:一、驳回原告吕金奎等50人的诉讼请求;二、驳回原告吕金国等29人的诉讼请求。宣判后,吕金奎等79人提出上诉。天津市高级人民法院于2014年11月11日作出(2014)津高民四终字第22号民事判决:一、撤销天津海事法院(2011)津海法事初字第115号民事判决;二、山海关船舶重工有限责任公司于本判决送达之日起十五日内赔偿王丽荣等21人养殖损失共计1377696元;三、驳回吕金奎等79人的其他诉讼请求。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
According to the effective court judgment, Article 66 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China provided: “Where any dispute arises over an environmental pollution, the polluter shall assume the burden to prove that it should not be liable or its liability could be mitigated under certain circumstances as provided for by law or to prove that there is no causation between its conduct and the harm.” The 79 persons including Lv Jinkui should bear the burden of proving the facts that Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding performed a polluting act and that the act caused damage to them and submit prima facie evidence of possible causation between the polluting act and the damage; and Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding should bear the burden of proving the no-liability or mitigating circumstances as provided for by law and the absence of causation between the act and the damage. 法院生效裁判认为,《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第六十六条规定,因污染环境发生纠纷,污染者应当就法律规定的不承担责任或者减轻责任的情形及其行为与损害之间不存在因果关系承担举证责任。吕金奎等79人应当就山船重工公司实施了污染行为、该行为使自己受到了损害之事实承担举证责任,并提交污染行为和损害之间可能存在因果关系的初步证据;山船重工公司应当就法律规定的不承担责任或者减轻责任的情形及行为与损害之间不存在因果关系承担举证责任。
Whether Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding performed a polluting act: The 79 persons including Lv Jinkui submitted an Authentication Opinion, Analysis Report, Monitoring Report, and a letter issued by the Environmental Protection Bureau of Qinhuangdao City as evidence of the pollution fact. The court of first instance commissioned a judicial authentication center to authenticate the probative value of the above-mentioned evidence of the case-related pollution fact, at the request of the 79 persons including Lv Jinkui. The scope of the judicial authentication center included maritime judicial authentication, the three authenticators were each correspondingly qualified for authentication, and the qualifications of the authentication entity and the authenticators were confirmed. The Analysis Report was corroborated by the statement by Shanhaiguan District, Qinhuangdao City in the Transcripts of Questioning and the letter issued by the Environmental Protection Bureau of Qinhuangdao City. Such evidence was sufficient to establish the fact that the pollution took place in the sea area in Laolongtou of Shanhaiguan, Qinhuangdao on August 2, 2010. Article 95(1) of the Marine Environment Protection Law of the People's Republic of China stated: “‘Pollution damage to the marine environment' means any direct or indirect introduction of substances or energy into the marine environment which results in deleterious effects such as harm to marine living resources, hazards to human health, hindrance to fishing and other legitimate operations at sea, impairment of the utilization quality of sea water and degradation of environment quality.” The Authentication Opinion ruled out the possibility of red tide based on the phenomenon that the gray value of the polluted seawater anomaly areas was slightly lower than the surrounding seawater; ruled out the possibility of marine oil spills based on the facts that there was neither oil well platform in the sea area in Laolongtou of Shanhaiguan nor large ship collision or reef stranding accident around August 2, 2010; and concluded that the case-related pollution accident was caused by a serious wastewater discharge or leakage, based on the monitoring results in the Monitoring Report that the seawater was reddish brown and turbid and the iron content was 13.1 mg/L. Based on the facts that Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding was the only large enterprise at the coast in the vicinity of Laolongtou of Shanhaiguan and that the main business of the company was ship building and repairing, it was concluded that the pollution was caused by the leakage of rust removal wastewater with a relatively high iron content from Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding during the building and repairing of large ships. As Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding failed to provide contrary evidence and reasons sufficient for contradiction despite its disagreement to the above conclusions of the Authentication Opinion, the probative value of the pollution source analysis in the Authentication Opinion was confirmed, and on that basis, it was determined that Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding performed the polluting act of leaking wastewater with a relatively high iron content into the sea. 关于山船重工公司是否实施污染行为。吕金奎等79人为证明污染事实发生,提交了《鉴定意见》《分析报告》《监测报告》以及秦皇岛市环境保护局出具的函件等予以证明。关于上述证据对涉案污染事实的证明力,原审法院依据吕金奎等79人的申请委托司法鉴定中心进行鉴定,该司法鉴定中心业务范围包含海事类司法鉴定,三位鉴定人均具有相应的鉴定资质,对鉴定单位和鉴定人的资质予以确认。而且,《分析报告》能够与秦皇岛市山海关区在《询问笔录》中的陈述以及秦皇岛市环境保护局出具的函件相互佐证,上述证据可以证实秦皇岛山海关老龙头海域在2010年8月2日发生污染的事实。《中华人民共和国海洋环境保护法》第九十五条第一项规定:“海洋环境污染损害,是指直接或者间接地把物质或者能量引入海洋环境,产生损害海洋生物资源、危害人体健康、妨害渔业和海上其他合法活动、损害海水使用素质和减损环境质量等有害影响。”《鉴定意见》根据污染海水异常区灰度值比周围海水稍低的现象,排除海洋赤潮的可能;通过山海关老龙头海域无油井平台以及2010年8月2日未发生大型船舶碰撞、触礁搁浅等事实,排除海洋溢油的可能;进而,根据《监测报告》中海水呈红褐色、浑浊,铁含量为13.1mg/L的监测结果,得出涉案污染事故系严重污水排放或泄漏导致的推论。同时,根据山船重工公司为山海关老龙头附近临海唯一大型企业以及公司的主营业务为船舶修造的事实,得出污染系山船重工公司在修造大型船舶过程中泄漏含铁量较高的刨锈污水导致的结论。山船重工公司虽不认可《鉴定意见》的上述结论,但未能提出足以反驳的相反证据和理由,故对《鉴定意见》中关于污染源分析部分的证明力予以确认,并据此认定山船重工公司实施了向海水中泄漏含铁量较高污水的污染行为。
Whether the 79 persons including Lv Jinkui sustained damage: On the basis of the identification of the farming areas of 21 persons including Wang Lirong, the sea area pollution authentication in the Authentication Opinion concluded by marking the coordinates of the farming areas and those of the polluted seawater area on an electronic chart that the polluted seawater area covered all the farming areas. Based on the above, it was determined that the 21 persons including Wang Lirong were engaged in farming and that their farming areas were polluted. 关于吕金奎等79人是否受到损害。《鉴定意见》中海域污染鉴定部分在确定了王丽荣等21人养殖区域的基础上,进一步通过将养殖区地理坐标与污染海水区地理坐标一起显示在电子海图上的方式,得出污染海水区全部覆盖养殖区的结论。据此,认定王丽荣等21人从事养殖且养殖区域受到了污染。
Causation between the polluting act and the damage: On the basis of fulfilling the above burden of proof, the 21 persons including Wang Lirong should also submit the prima facie evidence of possible causation between the polluting act and the damage. The Authentication Opinion analyzed the water quality in the sea area in Laolongtou of Shanhaiguan, stated according to the Monitoring Report issued by the Environmental Protection Bureau of Qinhuangdao City that the water in the sea area was with a relatively high suspended matter, iron, and petroleum content and that the most polluting substance, iron, posed relatively considerable harm to fisheries and farming waters. By doing so, the 21 persons including Wang Lirong fulfilled their burden of proof in the dispute over marine pollution damages. As Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding stated that it was not the tortfeasor, it should bear the burden of proving its non-liability or mitigating circumstances and the absence of causation between its act and the damage. Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding claimed that because the standards adopted by the Authentication Opinion contained no provisions or restrictions on the iron content of seawater, iron was not a standard to assess seawater quality and that even if iron content was one of the standards, there was no relevant indicator as to how much it had to reach to cause pollution damage. The people's court held the following: First, the Marine Environment Protection Law of the People's Republic of China clearly provided that the damage caused by an actor introducing substances or energy into the sea was treated as pollution; and Article 65 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China did not limit the liability for environmental pollution to pollution discharges in excess of national or local standards. No matter whether national or local standards set out requirements for the control of certain substance discharges, or whether pollution discharges met national or local standards, an actor was liable for compensation as long as it could be determined that its polluting act caused environmental damage. Second, China's Water Quality Standard for Fisheries and Sea Water Quality Standard in force intended to assess seawater quality had not been revised since their implementation, and the items enumerated therein were not enough to exhaust all the substances that might cause pollution today. In that regard, the Water Quality Standard for Fisheries and Sea Water Quality Standard were not the only basis for judging whether certain types of substances caused pollution damage. Third, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Qinhuangdao City also stated in the Review Opinion of the Environmental Protection Bureau of Qinhuangdao City that as the state did not specify the pollutant discharge standards in relation to the iron content of seawater, it was necessary for the relevant authorities and experts to further establish whether mariculture was affected. In this case, the authenticators who issued the Authentication Opinion had specialized knowledge about marine pollution authentication. By analyzing and judging the relevant background data, they reached a conclusion that the iron content of the water in the case-related sea area inflicted relatively great harm on fisheries and farming waters. The conclusion was scientific and should be used as a basis for determining that the case-related sea area was polluted with iron. 关于污染行为和损害之间的因果关系。王丽荣等21人在完成上述证明责任的基础上,还应提交证明污染行为和损害之间可能存在因果关系的初步证据。《鉴定意见》对山海关老龙头海域水质进行分析,其依据秦皇岛市环境保护局出具的《监测报告》将该海域水质评价为悬浮物、铁物质及石油含量较高,污染最严重的因子为铁,对渔业和养殖水域危害程度较大。至此,王丽荣等21人已完成海上污染损害赔偿纠纷案件的证明责任。山船重工公司主张其非侵权行为人,应就法律规定的不承担责任或者减轻责任的情形及行为与损害之间不存在因果关系承担举证责任。山船重工公司主张因《鉴定意见》采用的评价标准中不存在对海水中铁含量的规定和限制,故铁不是评价海水水质的标准;且即使铁含量是标准之一,其达到多少才能构成污染损害亦无相关指标。对此,人民法院认为:第一,《中华人民共和国海洋环境保护法》明确规定,只要行为人将物质或者能量引入海洋造成损害,即视为污染;《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第六十五条亦未将环境污染责任限定为排污超过国家标准或者地方标准。故,无论国家或地方标准中是否规定了某类物质的排放控制要求,或排污是否符合国家或地方规定的标准,只要能够确定污染行为造成环境损害,行为人就须承担赔偿责任。第二,我国现行有效评价海水水质的《渔业水质标准》和《海水水质标准》实施后长期未进行修订,其中列举的项目已不足以涵盖当今可能造成污染的全部物质。据此,《渔业水质标准》和《海水水质标准》并非判断某类物质是否造成污染损害的唯一依据。第三,秦皇岛市环境保护局亦在《秦皇岛市环保局复核意见》中表示,因国家对海水中铁物质含量未明确规定污染物排放标准,故是否影响海水养殖需相关部门专家进一步论证。本案中,出具《鉴定意见》的鉴定人具备海洋污染鉴定的专业知识,其通过对相关背景资料进行分析判断,作出涉案海域水质中铁物质对渔业和养殖水域危害程度较大的评价,具有科学性,应当作为认定涉案海域被铁物质污染的依据。
(Judges of the effective judgment: Geng Xiaoning, Tang Na, and Li Shanchuan) (生效裁判审判人员:耿小宁、唐娜、李善川)
Guiding Case No. 128 指导案例128号
Li Jin v. China Resources Land (Chongqing) Limited (environmental pollution liability dispute) 李劲诉华润置地(重庆)有限公司环境污染责任纠纷案
(Issued on December 26, 2019 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年12月26日发布)
Keywords: civil; environmental pollution liability; light pollution; determination of damage; tolerance 关键词 民事/环境污染责任/光污染/损害认定/可容忍度
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
As body injury caused by light pollution is characterized by latency, implicitness, and individual differences, among others, the people's court shall determine light pollution damage, taking into account national standards, local standards, industry standards, whether it interferes with the normal life, work, and study of others, and whether it is beyond the tolerance of the public. The tolerance of the public may be gaged based on the reaction of the surrounding residents, the actual perception on the scene, and expert opinions, among others. 由于光污染对人身的伤害具有潜在性、隐蔽性和个体差异性等特点,人民法院认定光污染损害,应当依据国家标准、地方标准、行业标准,是否干扰他人正常生活、工作和学习,以及是否超出公众可容忍度等进行综合认定。对于公众可容忍度,可以根据周边居民的反应情况、现场的实际感受及专家意见等判断。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
1. Articles 65 and 66 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China 1.《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第65条、第66条
2. Paragraph 1, Article 42 of the Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China 2.《中华人民共和国环境保护法》第42条第1款
Basic Facts 基本案情
Plaintiff Li Jin bought a dwelling (AAAA, Building B, C Community, Xiejiawan Main Street, Jiulongpo District, Chongqing Municipality) and had dwelt therein since 2005. The MixC Shopping Mall developed by defendant China Resources Land (Chongqing) Limited was separated from plaintiff's dwelling by a two-way, six-lane highway with a light rail line in the middle. There was no other barrier between the MixC Shopping Mall and plaintiff's flat. An LED screen intended for advertising, among others, was installed on the outer wall of the MixC Shopping Mall facing plaintiff's dwelling for advertising. The LED advertising billboard, put into operation since its installation in 2014, presented promotional materials and video advertising, among others, every day and produced bright light directly shining into plaintiff's flat, affecting the normal life of plaintiff. 原告李劲购买位于重庆市九龙坡区谢家湾正街×小区×幢×-×-×的住宅一套,并从2005年入住至今。被告华润置地(重庆)有限公司开发建设的万象城购物中心与原告住宅相隔一条双向六车道的公路,双向六车道中间为轻轨线路。万象城购物中心与原告住宅之间无其他遮挡物。在正对原告住宅的万象城购物中心外墙上安装有一块LED显示屏用于播放广告等,该LED显示屏广告位从2014年建成后开始投入运营,每天播放宣传资料及视频广告等,其产生强光直射入原告住宅房间,给原告的正常生活造成影响。
In May 2014, the property owners of plaintiff's community delivered a complaint to the municipal open government mailbox that since the giant LED screen of the MixC in China Resources Land City 24 in Xiejiawan came into operation on May 3, the bright light produced by the giant LED screen had directly shone into their flats, causing serious light pollution, and the volume of promotional videos had been loud, affecting their daily life, in the hope that the relevant authorities required the MixC to lower the volume and the luminous intensity of the LED screen. In September 2014, the residents of D Community, Huangyang Road, delivered a complaint to the municipal open government mailbox that a giant LED screen of the MixC presented information and advertisements overnight, generating so bright light that they were unable to fall into sleep at night and rest normally and that as the light pollution produced by the large screen of the MixC at night severely affected the occupants of high rises in surrounding communities, the relevant authorities were requested to take action, ban presentation at night, or ban all-night presentation and allow presentation before 8:00 p.m., and lower luminous intensity . In February 2018, the occupants of plaintiff's community delivered a complaint to the municipal open government mailbox that the large outdoor billboard of the MixC was a nightmare for the occupants and that the billboard presented video advertising every day, emitting extremely bright and frequently flickering light, which illuminated the flats of the owners living opposite at night as bright as daytime and seriously affected the rest of the elderly and children. The occupants hoped that the relevant authorities took corrective action as soon as possible. 2014年5月,原告小区的业主向市政府公开信箱投诉反映:从5月3日开始,谢家湾华润二十四城的万象城的巨型LED屏幕开始工作,LED巨屏的强光直射进其房间,造成严重的光污染,并且宣传片的音量巨大,影响了其日常生活,希望有关部门让万象城减小音量并且调低LED屏幕亮度。2014年9月,黄杨路×小区居民向市政府公开信箱投诉反映:万象城有块巨型LED屏幕通宵播放资料广告,产生太强光线,导致夜间无法睡眠,无法正常休息。万象城大屏夜间光污染严重影响周边小区高层住户,请相关部门解决,禁止夜间播放,或者禁止通宵播放,只能在晚上八点前播放,并调低亮度。2018年2月,原告小区的住户向市政府公开信箱投诉反映:万象城户外广告大屏就是住户的噩梦,该广告屏每天播放视频广告,光线极强还频繁闪动,住在对面的业主家里夜间如同白昼,严重影响老人和小孩的休息,希望相关部门尽快对其进行整改。
During the trial of this case, the people's court arranged for plaintiff and defendant to inspect the scene on the evening of August 11, 2018. An LED screen directly facing plaintiff's dwelling was presenting an advertising video and produced relatively bright light, which could directly shine into the living room of plaintiff's dwelling. The LED screen stopped presenting the advertising video and was turned off at 20:58 that night. The employees of the defendant company stated that the LED screen was 160 square meters in extent. 本案审理过程中,人民法院组织原、被告双方于2018年8月11日晚到现场进行了查看,正对原告住宅的一块LED显示屏正在播放广告视频,产生的光线较强,可直射入原告住宅居室,当晚该LED显示屏播放广告视频至20时58分关闭。被告公司员工称该LED显示屏面积为160㎡。
The people's court consulted the Ecological and Environmental Monitoring Station of Jiulongpo District, Chongqing about whether the case-related light pollution problem could be monitored environmentally. The person in charge of the station stated that as neither the state nor Chongqing had specifications and technical indicators in the aspect of the environmental monitoring of light pollution, the monitoring station was unable to conduct environmental monitoring of light pollution problems. Experts from the Chongqing Courts' Pool of Experts Participating in Environmental Resource Trials and the Deputy Director of the Ecological and Environmental Monitoring Station of Yongchuan District, Chongqing also stated that there was no specific standard for light pollution in terms of environmental protection, but from the perspective of civil legal relations, other evidence could be used to determine whether light pollution was caused. According to the evidence submitted by plaintiff in this case, the damage to plaintiff by the electronic screen of the MixC objectively existed and was mainly manifested as affecting the normal rest of plaintiff. Regarding the problems related to the light generated by the LED screen, the court consulted with the professors of the School of Architecture and Urban Planning of Chongqing University, the deputy managing director of the China Illuminating Society, the senior engineers of the School of Architecture and Urban Planning of Chongqing University, the directors of the China Illuminating Engineering Society, and other experts. The experts stated that the light emitted by LEDs (1) had a visual impact on human, to wit, disability glare and discomfort glare affected human eyes, and had biological effects, to wit, when the luminous intensity decreased at night, a person gradually fell asleep as a result of the interaction between two hormones: melatonin and cortisol—melatonin increased at night and decreased during the daytime, while cortisol decreased at night and increased during the daytime. If the light was too strong, the human biological clock would become disorderly and produce effects in the long run. In addition, the white light generated by LEDs contained blue light, which caused irreversible damage to the human retina. Outdoor blue light hazards were difficult to detect, but there was no standard to determine the duration and intensity. Regarding the impact of luminous intensity on human, some studies concluded that the impact on human was relatively marginal in general if the luminous intensity was less than 400 candela per square meter, but the conclusion was difficult to apply to dynamic billboards. Regarding the luminous intensity specifications, as the specifications prepared by different authorities imposed different limits on luminous intensity, and LED screens were unlike lighting producing direct light, and it was relatively appropriate to conduct determination by national standards related to LED screens. 就案涉光污染问题是否能进行环境监测的问题,人民法院向重庆市九龙坡区生态环境监测站进行了咨询,该站负责人表示,国家与重庆市均无光污染环境监测方面的规范及技术指标,所以监测站无法对光污染问题开展环境监测。重庆法院参与环境资源审判专家库专家、重庆市永川区生态环境监测站副站长也表示从环保方面光污染没有具体的标准,但从民事法律关系的角度,可以综合其余证据判断是否造成光污染。从本案原告提交的证据看,万象城电子显示屏对原告的损害客观存在,主要体现为影响原告的正常休息。就LED显示屏产生的光辐射相关问题,法院向重庆大学建筑城规学院教授、中国照明学会副理事长以及重庆大学建筑城规学院高级工程师、中国照明学会理事等专家作了咨询,专家表示,LED的光辐射一是对人有视觉影响,其中失能眩光和不舒适眩光对人的眼睛有影响;另一方面是生物影响:人到晚上随着光照强度下降,渐渐入睡,是褪黑素和皮质醇两种激素发生作用的结果--褪黑素晚上上升、白天下降,皮质醇相反。如果光辐射太强,使人生物钟紊乱,长期就会有影响。另外LED的白光中有蓝光成分,蓝光对人的视网膜有损害,而且不可修复。但户外蓝光危害很难检测,时间、强度的标准是多少,有待标准出台确定。关于光照亮度对人的影响,有研究结论认为一般在400cd/㎡以下对人的影响会小一点,但动态广告屏很难适用。对于亮度的规范,不同部门编制的规范对亮度的限值不同,但LED显示屏与直射的照明灯光还是有区别,以LED显示屏的相关国家标准来认定比较合适。
Judgment 裁判结果
On December 28, 2018, the Jiangjin District People's Court of Chongqing Municipality entered a Judgment (No. 6093 [2018], First, Civil Division, 0116, Chongqing) that (1) defendant China Resources Land (Chongqing) Limited should immediately cease the light pollution harm caused to plaintiff Li Jin by the operation of its LED screen placed on the outer wall of the MixC Shopping Mall in Xiejiawan Main Street, Jiulongpo District, Chongqing Municipality directly facing the dwelling of plaintiff Li Jin in Building B, C Community, Xiejiawan Main Street, Jiulongpo District, Chongqing Municipality on the effective date of this judgment: (a) the said screen might be on between 08:30 and 22:00 from May 1 to September 30 and between 08:30 and 21:50 from October 1 to April 30; and (b) the luminous intensity of the said LED screen should not be higher than 600 candela per square meter after 19:00, each day, and (2) the other claims of plaintiff should be dismissed. After the first-instance judgment was pronounced, neither party lodged an appeal, and the judgment became legally effective. 重庆市江津区人民法院于2018年12月28日作出(2018)渝0116民初6093号判决:一、被告华润置地(重庆)有限公司从本判决生效之日起,立即停止其在运行重庆市九龙坡区谢家湾正街万象城购物中心正对原告李劲位于重庆市九龙坡区谢家湾正街×小区×幢住宅外墙上的一块LED显示屏时对原告李劲的光污染侵害:1.前述LED显示屏在5月1日至9月30日期间开启时间应在8:30之后,关闭时间应在22:00之前;在10月1日至4月30日期间开启时间应在8:30之后,关闭时间应在21:50之前。2.前述LED显示屏在每日19:00后的亮度值不得高于600cd/㎡。二、驳回原告李劲的其余诉讼请求。一审宣判后,双方当事人均未提出上诉,判决已发生法律效力。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
According to court effective judgment, protecting the environment was China's basic policy, and all entities and individuals had the obligation to protect the environment. Article 9 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China stated: “The parties to civil legal relations shall conduct civil activities contributing to the conservation of resources and protection of environment.” Article 90 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China provided: “A holder of real property may not discard solid wastes or discharge atmospheric pollutants, water pollutants, or such harmful substances as noise, light and magnetic radiation by violating the relevant provisions issued by the state.” Paragraph 1, Article 42 of the Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China provided: “Enterprises, public institutions, and other businesses that discharge pollutants shall adopt measures to prevent and control pollution and damage to environment caused by waste gas, wastewater, waste residue, medical wastes, dust, malodorous gases, radioactive substances, noise, vibration, optical radiation, electromagnetic radiation, and other substances generated in their production, construction, and other activities.” This case was a dispute over liability for environmental pollution, and Article 65 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China provided: “Where any harm is caused by environmental pollution, the polluter shall assume the tort liability.” Tort liability for environmental pollution was special tort liability, and its components included (1) the polluter performed the act of polluting the environment; (2) the facts that the aggrieved person sustained damage; and (3) there was causation between the act of polluting the environment performed by the polluter and the damage to the aggrieved person. 法院生效裁判认为:保护环境是我国的基本国策,一切单位和个人都有保护环境的义务。《中华人民共和国民法总则》第九条规定:“民事主体从事民事活动,应当有利于节约资源、保护生态环境。”《中华人民共和国物权法》第九十条规定:“不动产权利人不得违反国家规定弃置固体废物,排放大气污染物、水污染物、噪声、光、电磁波辐射等有害物质。”《中华人民共和国环境保护法》第四十二条第一款规定:“排放污染物的企业事业单位和其他生产经营者,应当采取措施,防治在生产建设或者其他活动中产生的废气、废水、废渣、医疗废物、粉尘、恶臭气体、放射性物质以及噪声、振动、光辐射、电磁辐射等对环境的污染和危害。”本案系环境污染责任纠纷,根据《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第六十五条规定:“因污染环境造成损害的,污染者应当承担侵权责任。”环境污染侵权责任属特殊侵权责任,其构成要件包括以下三个方面:一是污染者有污染环境的行为;二是被侵权人有损害事实;三是污染者污染环境的行为与被侵权人的损害之间有因果关系。
I. Whether defendant performed the act of polluting the environment 一、关于被告是否有污染环境的行为
Defendant China Resources Land (Chongqing) Limited as the owner and manager of the MixC Shopping Mall installed an LED screen on the outer wall of the shopping mall facing the dwelling of plaintiff to present advertisements and promotional materials, among others, emitting bright light directly shining into the living room of the dwelling of plaintiff. It might follow from the photos, video recordings, and other evidence provided by plaintiff and the arrangement for the parties to inspect the scene that the bright light generated by defendant using an LED screen to present advertisements and promotional materials, among others, was beyond the scope generally tolerated by the general public. In terms of the cognitional laws and personal experience of the public, the bright light would seriously affect the normal work and study of neighbors and interfere with the normal life and rest of surrounding residents and caused light pollution. The act that defendant used an LED screen to present advertisements and promotional materials, among others, and cause light pollution constituted an act of environmental pollution. 被告华润置地(重庆)有限公司作为万象城购物中心的建设方和经营管理方,其在正对原告住宅的购物中心外墙上设置LED显示屏播放广告、宣传资料等,产生的强光直射进入原告的住宅居室。根据原告提供的照片、视频资料等证据,以及组织双方当事人到现场查看的情况,可以认定被告使用LED显屏播放广告、宣传资料等所产生的强光已超出了一般公众普遍可容忍的范围,就大众的认知规律和切身感受而言,该强光会严重影响相邻人群的正常工作和学习,干扰周围居民正常生活和休息,已构成由强光引起的光污染。被告使用LED显示屏播放广告、宣传资料等造成光污染的行为已构成污染环境的行为。
II. The facts of damage to the aggrieved person 二、关于被侵权人的损害事实
The facts of environmental pollution damage mainly included the facts that the act of polluting the environment caused damage to the property and person of a party and to the environment. The damage consequences caused by environmental pollution tort were different from those of ordinary tort, including not only measurable resultant damage showing manifest symptoms, but also that showing latent or temporarily no symptoms and provisionally impossible to indicate by measurement methods. This case was a light pollution dispute. The bodily injury caused by light pollution was characterized by latency, implicitness, and other characteristics. The aggrieved person often did not show obvious symptoms of damage at the beginning of damage, and the damage he or she sustained often could not be temporarily indicated by accurate measurement methods. But over time, the damage would be gradually manifested. Based on the expert opinions in this case, light pollution produced impacts on human perceived visually, and too bright light would cause human biological clock disorder. The impacts were unnoticeable in a short time, but would be considerable in the long term. In this case, the bright light produced by defendant using an LED screen to present advertisements and promotional materials, among others, was beyond the tolerance of ordinary persons and affected the normal life and rest of residents living nearby such as plaintiff. According to the rule of thumb, the light pollution generated by defendant using the LED screen was bound to cause damage to the physical and mental health of plaintiff and others, which was also generally accepted by the public. In summary, the light pollution generated by defendant using the LED screen had caused damage to the dwelling environmental rights and interests of plaintiff and to the physical and mental health of plaintiff. 环境污染的损害事实主要包含了污染环境的行为致使当事人的财产、人身受到损害以及环境受到损害的事实。环境污染侵权的损害后果不同于一般侵权的损害后果,不仅包括症状明显并可计量的损害结果,还包括那些症状不明显或者暂时无症状且暂时无法用计量方法反映的损害结果。本案系光污染纠纷,光污染对人身的伤害具有潜在性和隐蔽性等特点,被侵权人往往在开始受害时显露不出明显的受损害症状,其所遭受的损害往往暂时无法用精确的计量方法来反映。但随着时间的推移,损害会逐渐显露。参考本案专家意见,光污染对人的影响除了能够感知的对视觉的影响外,太强的光辐射会造成人生物钟紊乱,短时间看不出影响,但长期会带来影响。本案中,被告使用LED显示屏播放广告、宣传资料等所产生的强光,已超出了一般人可容忍的程度,影响了相邻居住的原告等居民的正常生活和休息。根据日常生活经验法则,被告运行LED显示屏产生的光污染势必会给原告等人的身心健康造成损害,这也为公众普遍认可。综上,被告运行LED显示屏产生的光污染已致使原告居住的环境权益受损,并导致原告的身心健康受到损害。
III. Whether defendant was subject to tort liability for environmental pollution 三、被告是否应承担污染环境的侵权责任
Article 66 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China stated: “Where any dispute arises over an environmental pollution, the polluter shall assume the burden to prove that it should not be liable or its liability could be mitigated under certain circumstances as provided for by law or to prove that there is no causation between its conduct and the harm.” In this case, plaintiff presented evidence of defendant's act of polluting the environment and the facts of damage to plaintiff. Defendant should bear the burden of proving the non-liability or mitigating circumstances as provided by the law or the absence of causation between the defendant's act of pollution and the damage in the case. However, defendant failed to submit evidence of the foregoing circumstances and thus should bear the adverse consequences of failure to meet the burden of proof and be subject to tort liability for environmental pollution. Article 13 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court of Several Issues on the Application of Law in the Trial of Disputes over Liability for Environmental Torts provided: “The people's court may, based on the claim of the aggrieved party and the specific case circumstances, rationally render a judgment to order the polluter to assume civil liabilities, including but not limited to the stopping the tortious act, removal of obstruction, elimination of danger, restoration to the original state, making an apology, and making compensation for losses.” The damage caused by environmental tort was different from general personal damage and property damage and had unique requirements for tort liability to which tortfeasors were subject. Environmental torts were against the personal and property rights and interests of the public at large in a certain region through the medium of the environment, and once the damage could be indicated by measurement methods, the consequences were often impossible to reverse and eliminate. Hence, for environmental torts, the tortfeasor was subject to corresponding tort liability for his or her act of polluting the environment, even if no measurable damage consequences had occurred. In this case, based on the complaints of citizens, defendant, as the manager of the MixC Shopping Mall, should have realized in the production and operation process that the bright light emitted when the LED screen was used to present advertisements and promotional materials, among others, would affect plaintiff and others living in the surrounding residential communities and had the obligation to take necessary measures to reduce the impact on plaintiff and others. However, defendant kept using the LED screen to present advertisements and promotional materials, among others, and the bright light produced was significantly beyond the tolerance of an ordinary person, created light pollution, seriously disrupted the normal life of surrounding persons, and caused damage to the environmental rights of plaintiff and others and to their physical and mental health. Though plaintiff had not shown obvious symptoms, it was an objective fact that the light pollution had trespassed on the life of plaintiff and damaged the environmental rights and interests of plaintiff. Therefore, defendant should bear civil liability for stopping the trespass and eliminating the nuisance. 中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第六十六条规定:“因污染环境发生纠纷,污染者应当就法律规定的不承担责任或者减轻责任的情形及其行为与损害之间不存在因果关系承担举证责任。”本案中,原告已举证证明被告有污染环境的行为及原告的损害事实。被告需对其在本案中存在法律规定的不承担责任或者减轻责任的情形,或被告污染行为与损害之间不存在因果关系承担举证责任。但被告并未提交证据对前述情形予以证实,对此被告应承担举证不能的不利后果,应承担污染环境的侵权责任。根据《最高人民法院关于审理环境侵权责任纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第十三条规定:“人民法院应当根据被侵权人的诉讼请求以及具体案情,合理判定污染者承担停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险、恢复原状、赔礼道歉、赔偿损失等民事责任。”环境侵权的损害不同于一般的人身损害和财产损害,对侵权行为人承担的侵权责任有其独特的要求。由于环境侵权是通过环境这一媒介侵害到一定地区不特定的多数人的人身、财产权益,而且一旦出现可用计量方法反映的损害,其后果往往已无法弥补和消除。因此在环境侵权中,侵权行为人实施了污染环境的行为,即使还未出现可计量的损害后果,即应承担相应的侵权责任。本案中,从市民的投诉反映看,被告作为万象城购物中心的经营管理者,其在生产经营过程中,理应认识到使用LED显示屏播放广告、宣传资料等发出的强光会对居住在对面以及周围住宅小区的原告等人造成影响,并负有采取必要措施以减少对原告等人影响的义务。但被告仍然一直使用LED显示屏播放广告、宣传资料等,其产生的强光明显超出了一般人可容忍的程度,构成光污染,严重干扰了周边人群的正常生活,对原告等人的环境权益造成损害,进而损害了原告等人的身心健康。因此即使原告尚未出现明显症状,其生活受到光污染侵扰、环境权益受到损害也是客观存在的事实,故被告应承担停止侵害、排除妨碍等民事责任。
(Judges of the effective judgment: Jiang Ling, Luo Jing, and Zhang Zhigui) (生效裁判审判人员:姜玲、罗静、张志贵)
Guiding Case No. 129 指导案例129号
People's Government of Jiangsu province v. Anhui Haide Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. (ecological and environmental damages dispute) 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
(Issued on December 26, 2019, as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年12月26日发布)
Keywords: civil; action for ecological and environmental damages; payment in installments 关键词 民事/生态环境损害赔偿诉讼/分期支付
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
An enterprise, public institution, or any other producer or distributor that hands over hazardous waste generated during its production and operation process to another enterprise or individual unqualified for disposal of hazardous waste to conduct disposal, causing environmental pollution, shall be liable for ecological and environmental damage. The people's court may adjudge the liable person to pay damages in installments after he or she has given effective security, taking into account the subjective fault, operating conditions, and other factors of the enterprise, public institution, or any other producer or distributor. 企业事业单位和其他生产经营者将生产经营过程中产生的危险废物交由不具备危险废物处置资质的企业或者个人进行处置,造成环境污染的,应当承担生态环境损害责任。人民法院可以综合考虑企业事业单位和其他生产经营者的主观过错、经营状况等因素,在责任人提供有效担保后判决其分期支付赔偿费用。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
1. Article 65 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China 1.《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第65条
2. Article 64 of the Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China 2.《中华人民共和国环境保护法》第64条
Basic Facts 基本案情
On April 28, 2014, Yang Feng, manager of the marketing department of Anhui Haide Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Haide Company”), delivered 29.1 tons of waste lye produced in the company's production process to Li Hongsheng and others unqualified for disposal of hazardous waste to conduct disposal. Li Hongsheng and others delivered the above-mentioned waste lye to Sun Zhicai unqualified for disposal of hazardous waste to conduct disposal. On April 30, 2014, Sun Zhicai and others dumped the waste lye into the Yangtze River, causing serious environmental pollution. On May 7, 2014, Yang Feng delivered 20 tons of waste lye from Haide Company to Li Hongsheng and others for disposal, and Li Hongsheng and others delivered the above waste lye to Sun Zhicai for disposal. On May 7 and June 17, 2014, Sun Zhicai and others dumped the waste lye into the Yangtze River, causing the taking of water from the centralized drinking water source in the urban area of Jingjiang City, Jiangsu province to be suspended for more than 40 hours from May 9 to 11. From May 8 to 9, 2014, Yang Feng delivered 53.34 tons of waste lye to Li Hongsheng and others for disposal, and Li Hongsheng and others delivered such waste lye to Ding Weidong for disposal. Ding Weidong and others dumped the waste lye into the New Tongyang Canal on May 14, 2014, causing the taking of water from the centralized drinking water source in the urban area of Xinghua City, Jiangsu province to be suspended for more than 14 hours. After the pollution incident had occurred, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Jingjiang City and the People's Procuratorate of Jingjiang City jointly commissioned the Jiangsu Provincial Society for Environmental Sciences to assess pollution damage. After investigation and assessment, the Jiangsu Provincial Society for Environmental Sciences issued an Assessment Report in June 2015. The People's Government of Jiangsu province sued in the Intermediate People's Court of Taizhou City, Jiangsu province for adjudging Haide Company to pay 36.379 million yuan in compensation for ecological and environmental restoration and 18.1895 million yuan for loss of ecological and environmental service functions and reimburse assessment costs of 260,000 yuan and court costs, among others. 2014年4月28日,安徽海德化工科技有限公司(以下简称海德公司)营销部经理杨峰将该公司在生产过程中产生的29.1吨废碱液,交给无危险废物处置资质的李宏生等人处置。李宏生等人将上述废碱液交给无危险废物处置资质的孙志才处置。2014年4月30日,孙志才等人将废碱液倾倒进长江,造成了严重环境污染。2014年5月7日,杨峰将海德公司的20吨废碱液交给李宏生等人处置,李宏生等人将上述废碱液交给孙志才处置。孙志才等人于2014年5月7日及同年6月17日,分两次将废碱液倾倒进长江,造成江苏省靖江市城区5月9日至11日集中式饮用水源中断取水40多个小时。2014年5月8日至9日,杨峰将53.34吨废碱液交给李宏生等人处置,李宏生等人将上述废碱液交给丁卫东处置。丁卫东等人于2014年5月14日将该废碱液倾倒进新通扬运河,导致江苏省兴化市城区集中式饮用水源中断取水超过14小时。上述污染事件发生后,靖江市环境保护局和靖江市人民检察院联合委托江苏省环境科学学会对污染损害进行评估。江苏省环境科学学会经调查、评估,于2015年6月作出了《评估报告》。江苏省人民政府向江苏省泰州市中级人民法院提起诉讼,请求判令海德公司赔偿生态环境修复费用3637.90万元,生态环境服务功能损失费用1818.95万元,承担评估费用26万元及诉讼费等。
Judgment 裁判结果
The Intermediate People's Court of Taizhou City, Jiangsu province, entered a Civil Judgment (No. 51 [2017], First, Civil Division, 12, Jiangsu) that (1) defendant Anhui Haide Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. should pay 36.379 million yuan in compensation for environmental restoration costs; (2) defendant Anhui Haide Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. should pay 18.1895 million yuan in compensation for the loss of ecological and environmental service functions; and (3) defendant Anhui Haide Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. should pay 260,000 yuan in compensation for assessment costs. After the judgment had been pronounced, Anhui Haide Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. appealed, and on December 4, 2018, the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu province entered a Civil Judgment (No. 1316 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Jiangsu) that (1) the Civil Judgment (No. 51 [2017], First, Civil Division, 12, Jiangsu) from the Intermediate People's Court of Taizhou, Jiangsu province should be affirmed. Anhui Haide Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. should pay the compensation of 54.8285 million yuan to the Environmental Public Interest Litigation Savings Account of Taizhou City within 60 days from the effective date of this judgment; and (2) Anhui Haide Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. might, after giving effective security to the Intermediate People's Court of Taizhou City, Jiangsu province, pay 20% (10.9657 million yuan) of the above amount within 60 days from the effective date of this judgment and 20% of the above amount respectively on April 4, 2019, December 4, 2020, December 4, 2021, and December 4, 2022, with each installment being 10.9657 million yuan). If an installment due is not paid, the People's Government of Jiangsu province might move the court for enforcement of all outstanding compensation. If Anhui Haide Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. failed to perform its payment obligations within the time limit specified in this judgment, it should pay double interest on the debts accrued during the delay in performance in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. 江苏省泰州市中级人民法院于2018年8月16日作出(2017)苏12民初51号民事判决:一、被告安徽海德化工科技有限公司赔偿环境修复费用3637.90万元;二、被告安徽海德化工科技有限公司赔偿生态环境服务功能损失费用1818.95万元;三、被告安徽海德化工科技有限公司赔偿评估费用26万元。宣判后,安徽海德化工科技有限公司提出上诉,江苏省高级人民法院于2018年12月4日作出(2018)苏民终1316号民事判决:一、维持江苏省泰州市中级人民法院(2017)苏12民初51号民事判决。安徽海德化工科技有限公司应于本判决生效之日起六十日内将赔偿款项5482.85万元支付至泰州市环境公益诉讼资金账户。二、安徽海德化工科技有限公司在向江苏省泰州市中级人民法院提供有效担保后,可于本判决生效之日起六十日内支付上述款项的20%(1096.57万元),并于2019年12月4日、2020年12月4日、2021年12月4日、2022年12月4日前各支付上述款项的20%(每期1096.57万元)。如有一期未按时履行,江苏省人民政府可以就全部未赔偿款项申请法院强制执行。如安徽海德化工科技有限公司未按本判决指定的期限履行给付义务,应当依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百五十三条之规定,加倍支付迟延履行期间的债务利息。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
According to the court effective judgment, as a chemical company, Haide Company had the obligation to prevent environmental pollution from the hazardous waste and waste lye produced in its production and operation process. Haide Company permitted Yang Feng, the head of its marketing department, to deliver waste lye to individuals unqualified for disposal of hazardous waste, resulting in the waste lye being dumped into the Yangtze River and the New Tongyang Canal and seriously polluting the environment. Article 64 of the Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China provided: “Where any damage is caused by environmental pollution or ecological disruption, the tortfeasor shall assume tort liability in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China.” Article 65 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China provided: “Where any harm is caused by environmental pollution, the polluter shall assume the tort liability.” Article 15 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China determined restoration to the original status and compensation for losses as methods for bearing liability. Environmental restoration costs, losses of ecological and environmental service functions, and assessment costs, among others, were the specific manifestations of legal liability for restoration to the original status and compensation for losses. In accordance with paragraph 1(6), Article 15 and Article 65 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China and paragraph 1, Article 1 and Article 13 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court of Several Issues on the Application of Law in the Trial of Disputes over Liability for Environmental Torts, it was not inappropriate to adjudge Haide Company to be subject to tort liability for compensation. 法院生效裁判认为,海德公司作为化工企业,对其在生产经营过程中产生的危险废物废碱液,负有防止污染环境的义务。海德公司放任该公司营销部负责人杨峰将废碱液交给不具备危险废物处置资质的个人进行处置,导致废碱液被倾倒进长江和新通扬运河,严重污染环境。《中华人民共和国环境保护法》第六十四条规定,因污染环境和破坏生态造成损害的,应当依照《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》的有关规定承担侵权责任。《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第六十五条规定,因污染环境造成损害的,污染者应当承担侵权责任。《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第十五条将恢复原状、赔偿损失确定为承担责任的方式。环境修复费用、生态环境服务功能损失、评估费等均为恢复原状、赔偿损失等法律责任的具体表现形式。依照《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第十五条第一款第六项、第六十五条,《最高人民法院关于审理环境侵权责任纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第一条第一款、第十三条之规定,判决海德公司承担侵权赔偿责任并无不当。
Haide Company moved for the payment of compensation in installments on the grounds that the company was overburdened and financially stressed and the payment of compensation in a short period would bankrupt the enterprise. In order to ensure the effective connection between ecological and environmental protection and economic development, the People's Government of Jiangsu province stated after the court trial that Haide Company provided evidence of its compliance with the direction of national economic structural adjustment and its capability to achieve the transition to green production and consented to Haide Company paying compensation in five installments in accordance with Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, conditional on its giving of effective security. 海德公司以企业负担过重、资金紧张,如短期内全部支付赔偿将导致企业破产为由,申请分期支付赔偿费用。为保障保护生态环境与经济发展的有效衔接,江苏省人民政府在庭后表示,在海德公司能够提供证据证明其符合国家经济结构调整方向、能够实现绿色生产转型,在有效提供担保的情况下,同意海德公司依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百三十一条之规定,分五期支付赔偿款。
(Judges of the effective judgment: Chen Ying, Zhao Li, and Wu Xiaoling) (生效裁判审判人员:陈迎、赵黎、吴晓玲)
Guiding Case No. 130 指导案例130号
People's Government of Chongqing Municipality and Chongqing Liangjiang Voluntary Service Center v. Chongqing Cangjin'ge Property Management Co., Ltd. and 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
Chongqing Shouxu Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. (environmental civil public interest litigation for ecological and environmental damages) 首旭环保科技有限公司生态环境损害赔偿、环境民事公益诉讼案
(Issued on December 26, 2019, as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年12月26日发布)
Keywords: civil; action for ecological and environmental damages; environmental civil public interest litigation; commissioned pollution discharges; joint tort; cost of ecological and environment restoration; assumed remediation cost approach 关键词 民事/生态环境损害赔偿诉讼/环境民事公益诉讼/委托排污/共同侵权/生态环境修复费用/虚拟治理成本法
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
1. An enterprise that has obtained a pollution discharge permit has a statutory obligation to ensure that its pollution discharge and treatment equipment operates normally and the discharges meet national and local discharge standards and perform the obligation to oversee the commissioned entity, if commissioning treatment from another entity; and if the commissioned entity discharges pollution illegally with the knowledge of the enterprise, and it does not stop or even facilitates the discharge, it shall be jointly and severally liable for environmental pollution damage. 1.取得排污许可证的企业,负有确保其排污处理设备正常运行且排放物达到国家和地方排放标准的法定义务,委托其他单位处理的,应当对受托单位履行监管义务;明知受托单位违法排污不予制止甚或提供便利的,应当对环境污染损害承担连带责任。
2. If a polluter causes damage to the ecology and environment by discharging pollution into waters, and the cost of ecological and environmental restoration is difficult to calculate, the consequences of damage shall be quantified by the assumed remediation cost approach according to the provisions on the authentication and assessment of ecological and environmental damage issued by the environmental protection authorities, and the qualified ecological and environmental damage shall be calculated according to the types of pollutants illegally discharged, quantity of pollution discharges, exclusivity of the source of pollution, and other factors. 2.污染者向水域排污造成生态环境损害,生态环境修复费用难以计算的,可以根据环境保护部门关于生态环境损害鉴定评估有关规定,采用虚拟治理成本法对损害后果进行量化,根据违法排污的污染物种类、排污量及污染源排他性等因素计算生态环境损害量化数额。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Article 8 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第8条
Basic Facts 基本案情
Chongqing Cangjin'ge Electroplating Industrial Park (also known as Cangjin'ge Electroplating Industrial Center), located in Gangcheng Industrial Park in Jiangbei District, Chongqing Municipality, was the only electroplating industrial park in the industrial park and home to several electroplating enterprises. Chongqing Cangjin'ge Property Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Cangjin'ge Company”) provided property management services for the enterprises in the park and was responsible for treating wastewater generated by the enterprises. Cangjin'ge Company held a pollutant discharge permit and had facilities and equipment for wastewater treatment. On December 5, 2013, Cangjin'ge Company and Chongqing Shouxu Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Shouxu Company”) entered into a four-year Agreement on Commissioned Operation and Management of Electroplating Wastewater Treatment (hereinafter referred to as the “Commissioned Operation Agreement”), by which Shouxu Company undertook the wastewater treatment project of the Cangjin'ge Electroplating Industrial Center, and the wastewater from the electroplating industrial center was delivered by Cangjin'ge Company to Shouxu Company for its using the wastewater treatment equipment of Cangjin'ge Company to conduct treatment. On April 21, 2016, the law enforcement personnel of the Environmental Supervision Group of Chongqing Municipality conducted an on-site inspection of the wastewater treatment station of Cangjin'ge Company and discovered that two total chromium reactors and one integrated reactor facility in the wastewater treatment station were not in operation and that production wastewater was discharged into the exterior environment without treatment. From April 22 to 26, 2016, the law enforcement personnel discovered by sampling and monitoring that the heavy metals in the discharged wastewater exceeded standards. In the illegally discharged wastewater, the total chromium concentration was 55.5 mg/L, the total zinc concentration was 2.85 × 102 mg/L, the total copper concentration was 27.2 mg/L, and the total nickel concentration was 41 mg/L, respectively 54.5 times, 189 times, 53.4 times, and 81 times higher than the standards specified in the Emission Standard of Pollutants for Electroplating (GB21900-2008), causing serious impacts and damage to the ecology and environment. On May 4, 2016, the law enforcement personnel conducted another on-site inspection and discovered that wastewater containing heavy metals in the No. 1 integrated wastewater conditioning tank of the Cangjin'ge Wastewater Treatment Station was discharged directly into the exterior environment through 120 mm-caliber piping network on the wall of the tank without proper treatment and flowed into the municipal sewer network of the Gangcheng Industrial Park and into the Yangtze River. According to the monitoring, in the wastewater leaked in the No. 1 tank, the concentration of hexavalent chromium was 6.10 mg/L, and the total chromium concentration was 10.9 mg/L, respectively 29.5 times and 9.9 times higher than the national standards. the wastewater discharged illegally from September 1, 2014 to May 5, 2016 totaled 145,624 tons. It was also discovered that in August 2014, Cangjin'ge Company converted a waste acid collection tank into the No. 1 integrated wastewater conditioning tank and made a transition from the transportation of wastewater by underground piping to by overhead piping. There were 110 mm-caliber piping and 120 mm-caliber piping on the wall of the tank. At the time of conversion, only the 110 mm-caliber piping was sealed, and the 120 mm-caliber piping was left unsealed. The unsealed piping was buried underground. Since September 2014, Shouxu Company had used the 120 mm-caliber piping to directly discharge untreated wastewater containing heavy metals into the exterior environment, knowing that the piping was connected to the exterior environment. 重庆藏金阁电镀工业园(又称藏金阁电镀工业中心)位于重庆市江北区港城工业园区内,是该工业园区内唯一的电镀工业园,园区内有若干电镀企业入驻。重庆藏金阁物业管理有限公司(以下简称藏金阁公司)为园区入驻企业提供物业管理服务,并负责处理企业产生的废水。藏金阁公司领取了排放污染物许可证,并拥有废水处理的设施设备。2013年12月5日,藏金阁公司与重庆首旭环保科技有限公司(以下简称首旭公司)签订为期4年的《电镀废水处理委托运行承包管理运行协议》(以下简称《委托运行协议》),首旭公司承接藏金阁电镀工业中心废水处理项目,该电镀工业中心的废水由藏金阁公司交给首旭公司使用藏金阁公司所有的废水处理设备进行处理。2016年4月21日,重庆市环境监察总队执法人员在对藏金阁公司的废水处理站进行现场检查时,发现废水处理站中两个总铬反应器和一个综合反应器设施均未运行,生产废水未经处理便排入外环境。2016年4月22日至26日期间,经执法人员采样监测分析发现外排废水重金属超标,违法排放废水总铬浓度为55.5mg/L,总锌浓度为2.85x102mg/L,总铜浓度为27.2mg/L,总镍浓度为41mg/L,分别超过《电镀污染物排放标准》(GB21900-2008)的规定标准54.5倍、189倍、53.4倍、81倍,对生态环境造成严重影响和损害。2016年5月4日,执法人员再次进行现场检查,发现藏金阁废水处理站1号综合废水调节池的含重金属废水通过池壁上的120mm口径管网未经正常处理直接排放至外环境并流入港城园区市政管网再进入长江。经监测,1号池内渗漏的废水中六价铬浓度为6.10mg/L,总铬浓度为10.9mg/L,分别超过国家标准29.5倍、9.9倍。从2014年9月1日至2016年5月5日违法排放废水量共计145624吨。还查明,2014年8月,藏金阁公司将原废酸收集池改造为1号综合废水调节池,传送废水也由地下管网改为高空管网作业。该池池壁上原有110mm和120mm口径管网各一根,改造时只封闭了110mm口径管网,而未封闭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,在明知池中有一根120mm管网可以连通外环境的情况下,仍然一直利用该管网将未经处理的含重金属废水直接排放至外环境。
Commissioned by the People's Government of Chongqing Municipality, the Chongqing Academy of Environmental Sciences carried out an authentication and assessment of the ecological and environmental damage caused by the illegal discharge of wastewater in excess of the standards by Cangjin'ge Company and Shouxu Company and issued an Authentication and Assessment Report in April 2017. According to the Authentication and Assessment Report, the pollution in this incident was unequivocal, the movement path of pollutants was reasonable, the source of pollution was homologous with the pollutants in the wastewater discharged illegally into the exterior environment, and the source of pollution was exclusive. The pollution lasted from September 1, 2014 to May 5, 2016, during which a total of 145,624 tons of wastewater mainly containing pollutants such as hexavalent chromium, total chromium, total zinc, and total nickel was illegally discharged, causing serious damage to the Yangtze River. The Authentication and Assessment Report quantified the ecological and environmental damage by the assumed remediation cost approach recommended by the Technical Guidelines for Identification and Assessment of Eco-environmental Damage: General Program and the Recommended Methods for Authentication and Assessment of Environmental Damage (Edition Ⅱ) and got the assumed remediation cost of 3.203728 million yuan by multiplying the actual remediation cost of 22 yuan per ton as the assumed unit remediation cost and the volume of illegally discharged wastewater. Where the wastewater was illegally discharged was the main urban section of the Yangtze River, and the applicable functional category was Class III water. According to the principle of determining pollution remediation costs for the assumed remediation cost approach, the cost for Class III water bodies ranged from 4.5 to six times the assumed remediation cost. The minimum multiple of 4.5 was selected for the assessment, and thus the qualified ecological and environmental pollution damage caused by two defendants illegally discharging wastewater was estimated at 14.416776 million yuan (3.203728 million yuan × 4.5 = 14.416776 million yuan). The Chongqing Academy of Environmental Sciences was an authentication institution confirmed by the Notice by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Issuing the List of Recommended Institutions for Authentication and Assessment of Environmental Damage (First Group). 受重庆市人民政府委托,重庆市环境科学研究院对藏金阁公司和首旭公司违法排放超标废水造成生态环境损害进行鉴定评估,并于2017年4月出具《鉴定评估报告书》。该评估报告载明:本事件污染行为明确,污染物迁移路径合理,污染源与违法排放至外环境的废水中污染物具有同源性,且污染源具有排他性。污染行为发生持续时间为2014年9月1日至2016年5月5日,违法排放废水共计145624吨,其主要污染因子为六价铬、总铬、总锌、总镍等,对长江水体造成严重损害。《鉴定评估报告书》采用《生态环境损害鉴定评估技术指南总纲》《环境损害鉴定评估推荐方法(第Ⅱ版)》推荐的虚拟治理成本法对生态环境损害进行量化,按22元/吨的实际治理费用作为单位虚拟治理成本,再乘以违法排放废水数量,计算出虚拟治理成本为320.3728万元。违法排放废水点为长江干流主城区段水域,适用功能类别属Ⅲ类水体,根据虚拟治理成本法的“污染修复费用的确定原则”Ⅲ类水体的倍数范围为虚拟治理成本的4.5-6倍,本次评估选取最低倍数4.5倍,最终评估出二被告违法排放废水造成的生态环境污染损害量化数额为1441.6776万元(即320.3728万元×4.5=1441.6776万元)。重庆市环境科学研究院是环境保护部《关于印发〈环境损害鉴定评估推荐机构名录(第一批)〉的通知》中确认的鉴定评估机构。
On June 30, 2016, the Environmental Supervision Group of Chongqing Municipality made an administrative punishment decision to fine Cangjin'ge Company 5.8072 million yuan on the ground that Cangjin'ge Company directly discharged wastewater containing heavy metals into the municipal sewer network of the Gangcheng Industrial Park and into the Yangtze River through the 120 mm-caliber piping in the No. 1 integrated wastewater conditioning tank, instead of the main outlet of the wastewater treatment station, from September 1, 2014 to May 5, 2016. Cangjin'ge Company was unsatisfied and applied for administrative reconsideration, and the Environmental Protection Bureau of Chongqing Municipality made a reconsideration decision to sustain the administrative punishment decision. Cangjin'ge Company then sued in the Yubei District People's Court of Chongqing Municipality for the revocation of the administrative punishment decision and the administrative reconsideration decision. The Yubei District People's Court of Chongqing Municipality entered an Administrative Judgment (No. 324 [2016], First, Administrative Division, 0112, Chongqing) on February 28, 2017, dismissing the claims of Cangjin'ge Company. After the passing of the judgment, Cangjin'ge Company did not appeal, and the judgment took legal effect. 2016年6月30日,重庆市环境监察总队以藏金阁公司从2014年9月1日至2016年5月5日通过1号综合调节池内的120mm口径管网将含重金属废水未经废水处理站总排口便直接排入港城园区市政废水管网进入长江为由,作出行政处罚决定,对藏金阁公司罚款580.72万元。藏金阁公司不服申请行政复议,重庆市环境保护局作出维持行政处罚决定的复议决定。后藏金阁公司诉至重庆市渝北区人民法院,要求撤销行政处罚决定和行政复议决定。重庆市渝北区人民法院于2017年2月28日作出(2016)渝0112行初324号行政判决,驳回藏金阁公司的诉讼请求。判决后,藏金阁公司未提起上诉,该判决发生法律效力。
On November 28, 2016, the Yubei District People's Procuratorate of Chongqing Municipality filed a public prosecution with the Yubei District People's Court of Chongqing Municipality, alleging that Shouxu Company and Cheng Long (the legal representative of Shouxu Company), among others, committed the crime of environmental pollution and should be held criminally liable according to the law. The Yubei District People's Court of Chongqing Municipality entered a Criminal Judgment (No. 1615 [2016], First, Criminal Division, 0112, Chongqing) on December 29, 2016, convicting Shouxu Company, Cheng Long, and others of the crime of environmental pollution. After the passing of the judgment, neither the prosecutor nor defendant appealed, and the judgment took legal effect. 2016年11月28日,重庆市渝北区人民检察院向重庆市渝北区人民法院提起公诉,指控首旭公司、程龙(首旭公司法定代表人)等构成污染环境罪,应依法追究刑事责任。重庆市渝北区人民法院于2016年12月29日作出(2016)渝0112刑初1615号刑事判决,判决首旭公司、程龙等人构成污染环境罪。判决后,未提起抗诉和上诉,该判决发生法律效力。
Judgment 裁判结果
On December 22, 2017, the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing Municipality entered a Civil Judgment (No. 773 [2017], First, Civil Division, 01, Chongqing) that (1) defendant Chongqing Cangjin'ge Property Management Co., Ltd. and defendant Chongqing Shouxu Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. should jointly and severally pay 14.416776 million yuan in compensation for the ecological and environmental restoration costs to the special account of the Finance Bureau of Chongqing Municipality within ten days after the effective date of this judgment, which the People's Government of Chongqing Municipality, the authorities it designated, and plaintiff Chongqing Liangjiang Voluntary Service Center should use for alternative restoration in light of the ecological and environmental damage in the region; (2) defendant Chongqing Cangjin'ge Property Management Co., Ltd. and defendant Chongqing Shouxu Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. should publicly apologize to the public in a media outlet at provincial level or above within ten days after the effective date of this judgment; (3) defendant Chongqing Cangjin'ge Property Management Co., Ltd. and defendant Chongqing Shouxu Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. should reimburse plaintiff, the People's Government of Chongqing Municipality, for authentication fees of 50,000 yuan and lawyer's fees of 198,000 yuan within ten days after the effective date of this judgment; (4) defendant Chongqing Cangjin'ge Property Management Co., Ltd. and defendant Chongqing Shouxu Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. should reimburse plaintiff Chongqing Liangjiang Voluntary Service Center for lawyer's fees of 80,000 yuan within ten days after the effective date of this judgment; and (5) the other claims of plaintiff, the People's Government of Chongqing Municipality, and plaintiff, Chongqing Liangjiang Voluntary Service Center, should be dismissed. After the passing of the judgment, none of the parties on either side appealed within the statutory time limit, and the judgment took legal effect. 重庆市第一中级人民法院于2017年12月22日作出(2017)渝01民初773号民事判决:一、被告重庆藏金阁物业管理有限公司和被告重庆首旭环保科技有限公司连带赔偿生态环境修复费用1441.6776 万元,于本判决生效后十日内交付至重庆市财政局专用账户,由原告重庆市人民政府及其指定的部门和原告重庆两江志愿服务发展中心结合本区域生态环境损害情况用于开展替代修复;二、被告重庆藏金阁物业管理有限公司和被告重庆首旭环保科技有限公司于本判决生效后十日内,在省级或以上媒体向社会公开赔礼道歉;三、被告重庆藏金阁物业管理有限公司和被告重庆首旭环保科技有限公司在本判决生效后十日内给付原告重庆市人民政府鉴定费5万元,律师费19.8万元;四、被告重庆藏金阁物业管理有限公司和被告重庆首旭环保科技有限公司在本判决生效后十日内给付原告重庆两江志愿服务发展中心律师费8万元;五、驳回原告重庆市人民政府和原告重庆两江志愿服务发展中心其他诉讼请求。判决后,各方当事人在法定期限内均未提出上诉,判决发生法律效力。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
According to the effective court judgment, the People's Government of Chongqing Municipality had standing to sue for ecological and environmental damages in accordance with the Plan for the Pilot Program of the Reform of the Ecological and Environmental Damages System, and Chongqing Liangjiang Voluntary Service Center had standing to file an environmental public interest litigation. The standing to sue the two plaintiffs enjoyed based on different provisions should be protected in accordance with the law. As the plaintiffs in the two cases sued the same defendant based on the same pollution fact and that their claims were basically the same, the two cases were combined for trial. 法院生效裁判认为,重庆市人民政府依据《生态环境损害赔偿制度改革试点方案》规定,有权提起生态环境损害赔偿诉讼,重庆两江志愿服务发展中心具备合法的环境公益诉讼主体资格,二原告基于不同的规定而享有各自的诉权,均应依法予以保护。鉴于两案原告基于同一污染事实与相同被告提起诉讼,诉讼请求基本相同,故将两案合并审理。
The issues in this case were: 本案的争议焦点为:
I. whether the types of pollutants, exclusivity of the source of pollution, measure of illegally discharged wastewater, and quantified damage determined in the Authentication and Assessment Report were accurate 一、关于《鉴定评估报告书》认定的污染物种类、污染源排他性、违法排放废水计量以及损害量化数额是否准确
First, whether the types of pollutants, exclusivity of the source of pollution, and measure of illegally discharged wastewater determined in the Authentication and Assessment Report were accurate. The types of pollutants, exclusivity of the source of pollution, and measure of illegally discharged wastewater had been confirmed directly or indirectly by the Administrative Judgment (No. 324 [2016], First, Administrative Division, 0112, Chongqing). In this case, neither of two defendants provided contrary evidence to contradict the original judgment. Hence, the above-mentioned facts of environmental pollution on which the Authentication and Assessment Report was based were confirmed. Specifically, (1) the types of pollutants. In addition to the total chromium and hexavalent chromium determined by the effective criminal judgment, the wastewater discharged by two defendants contained heavy metal substances such as total zinc and total nickel. The fact was confirmed by the Environmental Monitoring Report issued by the Jiangbei District Environmental Monitoring Station and Chongqing Municipal Environmental Monitoring Center, the effective Administrative Judgment (No. 324 [2016], First, Administrative Division, 0112, Chongqing), and Cheng Long, the legal representative of Shouxu Company, when questioned in the investigation. Second, the exclusivity of the source of pollution. Two defendants argued that as the sampling sites, W4 and W6, determined by the Analysis Report Form (No. JD009 [2016], Supervision, Jiangbei Environment) issued by the Jiangbei District Environmental Monitoring Station were higher than the Cangjin'ge Wastewater Treatment Station, it was impossible that the pollutants in excess of standards detected in the two places were caused by the acts of two defendants. As the polluted waters were characterized by fluidity and had self-purification functions, the water quality had been restored to a certain extent, objectively rendering it impossible for the authentication institution to take samples of wastewater when it was illegally discharged around the wastewater treatment station. For that reason, only the samples of the illegally discharged wastewater taken by the environmental administrative law enforcement authorities when they investigated and punished the illegal acts of defendants could be authenticated. During the enforcement actions for environmental protection in connection with the treatment of wastewater by Cangjin'ge, monitoring samplings were taken several times at more than one sampling site. In addition to the Analysis Report Form (No. JD009 [2016], Supervision, Jiangbei Environment), the Environmental Monitoring Report issued by the Jiangbei District Environmental Monitoring Station and Chongqing Municipal Environmental Monitoring Center issued several monitoring reports. The administrative punishment decision from the Environmental Supervision Group of Chongqing Municipality and the reconsideration decision from the Environmental Protection Bureau of Chongqing Municipality were made on the basis of the comprehensive evaluation of the above monitoring reports, instead of in sole reliance on one of the analysis reports or monitoring reports. The legality and reasonableness of the conduct of the environmental protection authorities in the whole process of administrative enforcement actions including sampling and front-end enforcement actions had been confirmed by the effective administrative judgment. The above monitoring and analysis results showed that the pollutants in the wastewater were heavy metals discharged by the electroplating industry. The on-record evidence established that Cangjin'ge was the only electroplating industrial park in the case-related area, and the results of the environmental monitoring were consistent with the type of wastewater illegally discharged by the Cangjin'ge Wastewater Treatment Station. As the above facts proved the only possibility that the wastewater discharged at the above sampling sites was from the Cangjin'ge Wastewater Treatment Station, the source of pollutants could be determined exclusive. Third, the measure of illegal pollution discharges. According to the confirmation by the effective criminal judgment and administrative judgment, in light of the transcripts of investigation and questioning in the process of administrative enforcement actions, the basic fact that wastewater moved from the chromium conditioning tank to the No. 1 integrated wastewater conditioning tank and that the wastewater containing heavy metals was directly discharged into the exterior environment and the municipal sewer network through the 120 mm-caliber piping installed in the No. 1 tank could be established. As ascertained in the court trial, the Authentication and Assessment Report integrated evidence and got the quantity of illegally discharged wastewater by subtracting consumption, moisture in sludge, online water discharges, and holiday water discharges from the total water input. The evidence and facts on which it was based had been admitted by defendants or effective judgments, or the relevant administrative actions had passed the legality review of the administrative litigation procedure, and the measurement methods it adopted were scientific and reasonable. To sum up, the objection raised by Cangjin'ge Company and Shouxu Company that the types of pollutants, quantity of illegally discharged wastewater, and exclusivity of the source of pollution was not tenable. 首先,关于《鉴定评估报告书》认定的污染物种类、污染源排他性和违法排放废水计量是否准确的问题。污染物种类、污染源排他性及违法排放废水计量均已被(2016)渝0112行初324号行政判决直接或者间接确认,本案中二被告并未提供相反证据来推翻原判决,故对《鉴定评估报告书》依据的上述环境污染事实予以确认。具体而言,一是关于污染物种类的问题。除了生效刑事判决所认定的总铬和六价铬之外,二被告违法排放的废水中还含有重金属物质如总锌、总镍等,该事实得到了江北区环境监测站、重庆市环境监测中心出具的环境监测报告以及(2016)渝0112行初324号生效行政判决的确认,也得到了首旭公司法定代表人程龙在调查询问中的确认。二是关于污染源排他性的问题。二被告辩称,江北区环境监测站出具的江环(监)字〔2016〕第JD009号分析报告单确定的取样点W4、W6位置高于藏金阁废水处理站,因而该两处检出污染物超标不可能由二被告的行为所致。由于被污染水域具有流动性的特征和自净功能,水质得到一定程度的恢复,鉴定机构在鉴定时客观上已无法再在废水处理站周围提取到违法排放废水行为持续时所流出的废水样本,故只能依据环境行政执法部门在查处二被告违法行为时通过取样所固定的违法排放废水样本进行鉴定。在对藏金阁废水处理情况进行环保执法的过程中,先后在多个取样点进行过数次监测取样,除江环(监)字〔2016〕第JD009号分析报告单以外,江北区环境监测站与重庆市环境监测中心还出具了数份监测报告,重庆市环境监察总队的行政处罚决定和重庆市环境保护局的复议决定是在对上述监测报告进行综合评定的基础上作出的,并非单独依据其中一份分析报告书或者监测报告作出。环保部门在整个行政执法包括取样等前期执法过程中,其行为的合法性和合理性已经得到了生效行政判决的确认。同时,上述监测分析结果显示废水中的污染物系电镀行业排放的重金属废水,在案证据证实涉案区域唯有藏金阁一家电镀工业园,而且环境监测结果与藏金阁废水处理站违法排放废水种类一致,以上事实证明上述取水点排出的废水来源仅可能来自于藏金阁废水处理站,故可以认定污染物来源具有排他性。三是关于违法排污计量的问题。根据生效刑事判决和行政判决的确认,并结合行政执法过程中的调查询问笔录,可以认定铬调节池的废水进入1号综合废水调节池,利用1号池安装的120mm口径管网将含重金属的废水直接排入外环境并进入市政管网这一基本事实。经庭审查明,《鉴定评估报告书》综合证据,采用用水总量减去消耗量、污泥含水量、在线排水量、节假日排水量的方式计算出违法排放废水量,其所依据的证据和事实或者已得到被告方认可或生效判决确认,或者相关行政行为已通过行政诉讼程序的合法性审查,其所采用的计量方法具有科学性和合理性。综上,藏金阁公司和首旭公司提出的污染物种类、违法排放废水量和污染源排他性认定有误的异议不能成立。
Second, whether the quantified damage determined in the Authentication and Assessment Report was accurate. Plaintiff commissioned the Chongqing Academy of Environmental Sciences to authenticate and assess the ecological and environmental damage in this case and issue an Authentication and Assessment Report, which determined the quantified ecological and environmental damage caused by two defendants illegally discharging pollution to be 14.416776 million yuan. According to investigation, the Chongqing Academy of Environmental Sciences was an authentication and assessment institution designated by the Notice by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Issuing the List of Recommended Institutions for Authentication and Assessment of Environmental Damage (First Group), and it conformed with judicial interpretations to commission the institution to authenticate and assess the ecological and environmental damage in this case. It was correspondingly qualified for authentication. According to the Technical Guidelines for Identification and Assessment of Eco-environmental Damage: General Program and the Recommended Methods for Authentication and Assessment of Environmental Damage (Edition II) formulated by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, authentication and assessment might quantify ecological and environmental damage caused by incidents by the assumed remediation cost approach, and the results of the quantification might be used as a basis for ecological and environmental damages. As the long duration of illegally discharging pollution and the large quantity of illegal discharges in this case, in addition to the flowing state of the Yangtze River, rendered the direct calculation of the cost of ecological environment restoration difficult, it was not inappropriate for the Authentication and Assessment Report to quantify the resultant damage by the assumed remediation cost approach. The Authentication and Assessment Report determined 22 yuan per ton as the actual unit remediation cost, based on the on-site inspection of the financial documents of Cangjin'ge Company by the Environmental Supervision Group of Chongqing Municipality, taking into account the transcripts of investigating and questioning Sun Qiliang, the legal representative of the Cangjin'ge Company. It was not inappropriate either for the Authentication and Assessment Report, according to the Recommended Methods for Authentication and Assessment of Environmental Damage (Edition Ⅱ), the principle for determining the cost of pollution remediation for Class III surface water as 4.5 to six times the assumed remediation cost, taking into the pollution facts in this case, to select the minimum multiple, 4.5, to calculate the qualified damage (3.203728 million × 4.5 = 14.416776 million yuan).
......
 其次,关于《鉴定评估报告书》认定的损害量化数额是否准确的问题。原告方委托重庆市环境科学研究院就本案的生态环境损害进行鉴定评估并出具了《鉴定评估报告书》,该报告确定二被告违法排污造成的生态环境损害量化数额为1441.6776万元。经查,重庆市环境科学研究院是环境保护部《关于印发〈环境损害鉴定评估推荐机构名录(第一批)〉的通知》中确立的鉴定评估机构,委托其进行本案的生态环境损害鉴定评估符合司法解释之规定,其具备相应鉴定资格。根据环境保护部组织制定的《生态环境损害鉴定评估技术指南总纲》《环境损害鉴定评估推荐方法(第II版)》,鉴定评估可以采用虚拟治理成本法对事件造成的生态环境损害进行量化,量化结果可以作为生态环境损害赔偿的依据。鉴于本案违法排污行为持续时间长、违法排放数量大,且长江水体处于流动状态,难以直接计算生态环境修复费用,故《鉴定评估报告书》采用虚拟治理成本法对损害结果进行量化并无不当。《鉴定评估报告书》将22元/吨确定为单位实际治理费用,系根据重庆市环境监察总队现场核查藏金阁公司财务凭证,并结合对藏金阁公司法定代表人孙启良的调查询问笔录而确定。《鉴定评估报告书》根据《环境损害鉴定评估推荐方法(第Ⅱ版)》,Ⅲ类地表水污染修复费用的确定原则为虚拟治理成本的4.5-6倍,结合本案污染事实,取最小倍数即4.5倍计算得出损害量化数额为320.3728万元×4.5=1441.6776万元,亦无不当。
......

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
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【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