catalogue

1. Foshan Sanying Fine Materials Co., Ltd. v. Shunde District People's Government of Foshan City Environmental Protection Administrative Penalty Case

2. Dynamic Bar v. Environmental Protection Administrative Order of Liangzhou District Environmental Protection Bureau in Wuwei City

3. Haili International Golf Course Co., Ltd. v. State Oceanic Administration for Environmental Protection Administrative Penalty Case

4. Lu Hong and 204 others sued the Environmental Protection Administration License Case of Xiaoshan District Environmental Protection Bureau in Hangzhou City

5. Junning Machinery Factory v. Environmental Protection Administration Punishment Case of Jin'an District Environmental Protection Bureau in Lu'an City

6. Su Yaohua v. Announcement of the People's Government of Boluo County, Guangdong Province on Delimitation of the Scope of Prohibited Breeding Areas

7. Quanzhou Hongsheng Stone Industry Co., Ltd. v. Environmental Protection Administration of Jinjiang Environmental Protection Bureau

8. Mengdachi Automotive System (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd. v. Suzhou Industrial Park Environmental Protection Bureau Environmental Protection Administrative Penalty Case

9. Xia Chunguan and four others sued the Environmental Impact Assessment Administrative License Case of Dongtai Environmental Protection Bureau

10. Case of the Garden Industry Committee and Qianyang Jiayuan Industry Committee suing the Shanghai Environmental Protection Bureau for not accepting the approval decision of the environmental impact assessment report

1、 Foshan Sanying Fine Materials Co., Ltd. v. Shunde District People's Government of Foshan City Environmental Protection Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On December 2, 2011, the Environmental Transport and Urban Management Bureau of Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as the District Environmental Transport Bureau) issued a "Deadline Control Decision" to Foshan Sanying Fine Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sanying Company) on the grounds that the odor concentration in the exhaust gas emitted during the production process exceeded the standard, requiring the company to complete the odor concentration control before January 31, 2012 and meet the requirements of the "Odor Pollutant Emission Standard", And passed the acceptance by the Environmental Transport Bureau; Those who fail to apply for acceptance within the specified time limit or fail to complete the deadline for governance tasks will be ordered to suspend business or close down according to regulations; The company is required to analyze the reasons for the excessive emission of odor concentration, develop a deadline treatment and compliance plan, and implement various pollution prevention and control measures to ensure that pollutants are discharged in accordance with the standards.

On February 9, 2012, Sanying Company applied to the District Environmental Transport Bureau for governance acceptance. The Shunde District Environmental Protection Monitoring Station, commissioned by the District Environmental Transport Bureau, conducted odor emission monitoring on the company on April 26 and June 28 of the same year. Both monitoring reports showed that the odor concentration did not meet the standards. On August 29, 2012, the District Environmental Transport Bureau organized an on-site inspection by the acceptance team and conducted an investigation and inquiry with the legal representative, informing the company of the acceptance results: there were four issues: failure to submit a deadline treatment plan, inability to ensure unorganized exhaust gas emissions meet the standards, excessive odor concentration in the exhaust gas emissions, and the use of fuel that did not meet environmental requirements. The company did not pass the deadline treatment acceptance.

On January 11, 2013, the Shunde District People's Government issued an "Administrative Penalty Notice", and on March 18 of the same year, after a hearing, issued an "Administrative Penalty Decision", deciding that Sanying Company would cease operations and close down from the date of receiving the administrative penalty decision. The company is dissatisfied with filing an administrative lawsuit and requests the court to revoke the aforementioned Administrative Penalty Decision.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Foshan City held in the first instance that Sanying Company had no objection to the authority basis and administrative procedures for the punishment decision made by the Shunde District People's Government. The plaintiff believes that the sampling points and frequency of the two odor emission monitoring events mentioned above do not meet the statutory requirements and other interfering factors have not been ruled out. Therefore, the conclusion of the monitoring report cannot be used as a basis for finalizing the case. After investigation, the Environmental Protection Monitoring Station in Shunde District has the legal qualification for exhaust gas pollutant detection. The two odor sampling points of the monitoring station, namely the monitoring location, are sensitive points at the boundary of Sanying Company, which comply with the "Emission Standards for Odor Pollutants" and the "Reply on Unorganized Emission Detection of Odor Pollutants" issued by the State Environmental Protection Administration. The plaintiff's claim that the setting of odor monitoring sampling points is illegal is unfounded by law, and they have not provided sufficient evidence to prove the existence of other interference factors at the aforementioned odor monitoring sampling points. As for the sampling frequency issue, the monitoring station used a monitoring frequency of 4 times * 3 points for both odor monitoring, and the maximum measurement value was taken. However, the frequency interval was less than 2 hours, which had certain flaws. But this flaw is not enough to overturn the correctness of the monitoring report conclusion. Since the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of the Emission Standard of Odor Pollutants after twice monitoring the odor emission concentration after the expiration of the deadline for remediation, and there were other related environmental problems, the District Environmental Transport Bureau reported to the Shunde District People's Government to make an administrative penalty decision for the plaintiff to suspend business or close down in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Measures for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution in the the Pearl River Delta of Guangdong Province, and found that the facts were clear, the evidence was sufficient, and the applicable law was correct, The original lawsuit request was rejected in the judgment. After the plaintiff appealed, the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court rejected the appeal in the second instance and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that currently, environmental pollution has become a serious social issue of concern to the public. To control pollution, it is necessary to start from the source. In this case, the administrative authorities have requested a deadline for the treatment of enterprises that do not meet the standards. If they still fail to meet the standards, they will be ordered to suspend production or close down in accordance with the law, which is legally valid. In handling such administrative cases, people's courts should, on the one hand, review the law enforcement powers, basis, and procedures of administrative agencies in accordance with the law, and on the other hand, fully respect professional judgments and expert evidence such as exhaust gas pollutant monitoring reports from the perspective of evidence review, and accept legally formed evidence. The people's court firmly supports the strict punishment of enterprises with substandard pollutant emissions by environmental protection management agencies for their legitimate administrative actions in accordance with the law.

2、 Dynamic Bar v. Environmental Protection Administrative Order of Liangzhou District Environmental Protection Bureau in Wuwei City

（1） Basic facts of the case

The Environmental Protection Bureau of Liangzhou District, Wuwei City, Gansu Province (hereinafter referred to as the District Environmental Protection Bureau) received a complaint from Luyu Tea House in its jurisdiction regarding environmental noise pollution in the Dynamic Bar. On November 23, December 20, and December 22, 2012 from 22:05 to 23:05, environmental inspection and law enforcement personnel and environmental testing personnel were organized to conduct on-site inspections (surveys) and sampling tests on the environmental noise and prevention and control of the Dynamic Bar, The environmental noise emission values of the four detection points at the nighttime boundary reached 58 9dB (A); 55. 4dB (A); 52.9dB (A); 56.9dB (A); They all exceed the environmental noise emission standards specified in the national "Social Living Environment Noise Emission Standard" (GB22337-2008). On December 22, 2012, the District Environmental Protection Bureau produced a testing report and found that the nighttime noise of the Dynamic Bar reached 58.9 decibels, exceeding the national emission standards. Its behavior violated Article 43 (2) of the Environmental Noise Pollution Prevention and Control Law of the People's Republic of China, and in accordance with Article 59 of the law, On January 18, 2013, a decision was made to order the Dynamic Bar to correct its illegal behavior: it was ordered to immediately stop the illegal behavior of excessive emission of environmental noise, and to take sound insulation and noise reduction measures for rectification before February 28, 2013. The correction situation was reported in writing before February 28, 2013. On February 27, 2013, the Dynamic Bar submitted a noise prevention treatment report and application to the district environmental protection bureau, proving that it had been rectified. At the same time, it applied for a retest of the rectified noise. The district environmental protection bureau did not respond or organize further testing; On April 17 of the same year, the Dynamic Bar applied for reconsideration to the Wuwei City Environmental Protection Bureau regarding the above-mentioned order to correct the illegal behavior made by the district environmental protection bureau on January 18. The reconsideration authority refused to accept it on the grounds of overdue payment. Sui sued the District Environmental Protection Bureau as the defendant to request the court to revoke the decision to correct the illegal behavior mentioned above.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Liangzhou District, Wuwei City held in the first instance that the qualification of the defendant's environmental protection bureau as the law enforcement subject and the law enforcement procedures were legal. The testing standards applicable to the defendant's testing report (the "Emission Standards for Social Living Environment Noise") and the testing standards stated by the plaintiff (the "Standard Acoustic Environment Quality Standards") are two different standards stipulated by law. The former is the emission standards applicable to the management, evaluation, and control of equipment and facilities used in commercial cultural and entertainment venues and commercial activities that emit noise to the environment, The latter is an environmental quality standard applicable to the evaluation and management of acoustic environmental quality. The defendant's method of detecting noise does not violate legal provisions, and the test results are legal and valid. Therefore, the defendant's decision to order correction of illegal behavior is upheld. After the appeal of the Dynamic Bar, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuwei City held in the second instance that the appellant's environmental noise emissions and pollution noise during the night operation period had exceeded the limits specified in the "Social Living Environmental Noise Emission Standards", His behavior violates the provisions of Article 43 (2) of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Noise Pollution, which stipulates that for cultural and entertainment venues under operation, their managers must take effective measures to ensure that their boundary noise does not exceed the national environmental noise emission standards. The original judgment is clear in the facts and accurate in the application of law. The appeal is rejected and the original judgment is upheld.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court should provide support in accordance with the law for administrative litigation caused by environmental protection agencies' legal and appropriate handling of public complaints regarding the frequent noise disturbance in social life. Unlike civil trials that deal with specific infringers and victims' civil actions and related compensation, administrative trials provide support for legitimate administrative actions by supervising environmental protection agencies to fulfill their environmental protection responsibilities, and supervise and correct illegal administrative actions, which is beneficial for protecting the interests of polluted groups and promoting the improvement of the living environment of the people. The significance of this case is also reflected in the fact that the people's court has clarified the scope of application of noise related standards in law enforcement through adjudication. The "Acoustic Environmental Quality Standards", "Social Living Environmental Noise Emission Standards", and "Industrial Enterprise Boundary Environmental Noise Emission Standards" issued and implemented by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 2008 are important basis for environmental testing and law enforcement personnel to conduct noise supervision. The former is the environmental quality standard, while the latter two are emission standards. Their scope of application, testing methods, and limits are different, and the correct selection should be made based on factors such as the testing object and purpose. The judgment in this case correctly distinguishes the scope of application between the "Acoustic Environment Quality Standards" and the "Social Living Environment Noise Emission Standards", which has a demonstrative effect on the correct law enforcement by environmental protection agencies and the trial of similar administrative cases by people's courts.

3、 Haili International Golf Course Co., Ltd. v. State Oceanic Administration Environmental Protection Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Guangdong Haifeng County Haili International Golf Course Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Haili Company) and the Haifeng County People's Government (hereinafter referred to as the County Government) have signed a contract stipulating that "the coastal beach to the south of the land acquisition area and the sea surface extending one kilometer outward will be provided to Party B as supporting facilities for the construction of tourism for this project". Haili Company carried out the construction of a curved embankment in the South China Sea area of the Haili International Golf Course five-star hotel in Hongyuan District, Houmen Town, Haifeng County. On March 9, 2009, the curved embankment part involved in the case was formed. On March 19, 2010, the maritime supervision department discovered during a law enforcement inspection that the company had not obtained a sea area use right certificate to construct a curved embankment involved in the case, suspected of violating Article 3 of the Sea Area Use Management Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Sea Area Law). After being reported level by level, the State Oceanic Administration has filed a case for review. In March 2011, the South China Sea Survey Center was commissioned by the maritime supervision department to issue the "Technical Report on the Measurement of Reclamation Area for the Coastal Arc Protection Project of Haili International Golf Course in Haifeng County, Shanwei City", which pointed out that the involved arc protection embankment formed an impermeable structure (dam) by filling the sea, with an area of 0.1228 hectares.

On June 2, 2011, the State Oceanic Administration issued the "Notice of Administrative Penalty Hearing", informing Haili Company of the punishment it intends to impose, as well as the facts and legal basis. After organizing a hearing, on December 14 of the same year, the 12th Administrative Penalty Decision was made: Haili Company was deemed to have carried out the construction of the involved curved embankment project in mid March 2010 without the approval of the competent authority, and carried out reclamation activities by directly stacking crushed stones in the sea, As of November 17, 2010, as of the date of technical unit measurement, the area of the filled curved embankment was 0.1228 hectares. Based on this, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Sea Area Law and the Notice of the Ministry of Finance and the State Oceanic Administration on Strengthening the Collection and Management of Sea Area Use Fees, the company is ordered to return the illegally occupied sea area, restore the sea area to its original state, and impose a fine of RMB 828900, which is 15 times the amount of sea area use fees that should be paid during the illegal occupation of the sea area. The company is dissatisfied and applies for administrative reconsideration. On May 30, 2012, the State Oceanic Administration made an administrative reconsideration decision stating that the determination of Haili Company's involvement in the construction of the arc-shaped embankment since mid March 2010 was inconsistent with the situation shown in the aviation photos of the maritime supervision department that the arc-shaped embankment had already existed in 2009, and the determination of the facts was unclear. Therefore, the decision to revoke the penalty decision No. 12 was made. Subsequently, the State Oceanic Administration, after fulfilling the procedures of hearing, notification, and holding a hearing, issued the Administrative Penalty Decision No. 003 (2012) on July 25, 2012, stating that the evidence showed that the arc-shaped embankment involved in the case had partially formed on March 9, 2009. As of November 17, 2010, when the maritime supervision agency commissioned a technical unit to conduct on-site measurement, the area illegally occupied by the arc-shaped embankment in the sea area was 0.1228 hectares; The punishment basis and specific content are the same as the punishment decision No. 12 mentioned above. Haili Company is not satisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the court to revoke the Administrative Penalty Decision (2012) No. 003 issued by the Haijian Seventh Penalty.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court held that relevant provisions such as the "Provisional Regulations on the Administration of the Use of National Seas" and the "Regulations on the Administration of the Use of Guangdong Province Seas" clearly stipulate that any unit or individual who engages in the occupation of sea areas such as reclamation must obtain the right to use the sea area in accordance with the law. The certificate of the right to use the sea area issued by the marine administrative department is a proof of the legitimate use of the sea area by the parties involved. In this case, Haili Company's unauthorized acquisition of the right to use the sea area and the construction of curved embankments in the sea area belong to the situation of unauthorized illegal occupation of the sea area for reclamation activities referred to in Article 42 of the Sea Area Law. The evidence for determining this part of the defendant's punishment decision is sufficient and the qualitative accuracy is accurate. Haili Company's claim that the arc-shaped embankment involved in the case was not built within the sea area, therefore the State Oceanic Administration has no jurisdictional litigation grounds and lacks factual basis. The contract signed by the Haifeng County Government can serve as a litigation ground for obtaining the sea area use right, and lacks legal basis. Therefore, the court rejected the company's lawsuit request. After Haili Company appealed, the Beijing Higher People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in the fact that the people's court has effectively supported the marine administrative authorities in implementing supervision and management in accordance with the law and effectively protecting the marine ecological environment by playing an administrative and judicial role. The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China clearly proposed to improve the natural resource supervision system and implement restrictive measures for areas with overloaded marine resources. The sea area belongs to the state, and no unit or individual shall occupy, trade, or illegally transfer the sea area in any other form without obtaining the sea area use right certificate issued by the competent authority in accordance with the law. Otherwise, they shall be punished accordingly. In this case, although Haifeng County Government signed a contract with Haili Company to allow them to use the involved sea area, in accordance with relevant regulations such as the Sea Area Law, the company still needs to apply to the marine administrative department at or above the county level where the project is located in accordance with the law, and report to the approval authority level by level according to Article 11 of the Guangdong Provincial Regulations on the Use and Management of Sea Areas. The marine administrative department at the same level as the approval authority shall issue a sea area use certificate. The handling of this case has positive exemplary significance for clarifying the legal powers of local governments and marine administrative authorities, and for relevant administrative law enforcement and judicial practice.

4、 Lu Hong and 204 others v. Hangzhou Xiaoshan District Environmental Protection Bureau Environmental Protection Administrative License Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Hangzhou Xiaoshan Urban Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Investment Company", the third party in the original review) entrusted Zhejiang Industrial Environmental Protection Design and Research Institute Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Provincial Environmental Protection Design Institute") to conduct an environmental impact assessment of the project due to the needs of the renovation of the involved Fengqing Avenue and the construction of the South Extension Project. During the preparation process of the environmental impact assessment report, the urban investment company made two public announcements on the basic situation of the project and its potential impact on the surrounding environment, countermeasures and measures to prevent or reduce adverse environmental impacts, and key points of environmental impact assessment conclusions in the construction project area. The Provincial Environmental Protection Design Institute conducted a public survey by distributing individual and group questionnaires. On April 20, 2012, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou City (hereinafter referred to as the District Environmental Protection Bureau), together with the Urban Investment Corporation, the Provincial Environmental Protection Design Institute, and invited experts, held a technical review meeting for the environmental impact report of the involved project and formed review opinions. On April 23 of the same year, the District Environmental Protection Bureau posted the "Environmental Approval Publicity" for the project in question in the public notice column of the District Service Center Hall. The public announcement period is from April 23, 2012 to May 7 of the same year, totaling 10 working days. The main content of the announcement is: basic information of the project involved; The potential impact of the project on the environment; Countermeasures and measures to prevent or mitigate adverse environmental impacts; Key points of environmental impact assessment conclusion; The contact information of the construction unit, environmental impact assessment unit, and approval unit, and indicate that the methods for soliciting opinions are phone calls and letters. On May 29, 2012, the District Environmental Protection Bureau, together with the Urban Investment Company, the Provincial Environmental Protection Design Institute, and invited experts, held a technical review and evaluation meeting for the environmental impact assessment report (review draft) and formed a review opinion. In June 2012, the Provincial Environmental Protection Design Institute submitted a draft of the environmental impact assessment report for review. On June 28 of the same year, the urban investment company submitted the environmental impact assessment report and related application materials to the district environmental protection bureau, applying for approval of the environmental impact assessment report. On the same day, the District Environmental Protection Bureau issued a letter on the review opinions on the environmental impact report of the Fengqing Avenue renovation and South Extension (Jincheng Road Xianghu Road) project (hereinafter referred to as the "Review Opinion Letter"), agreeing to implement the project within the area permitted by the Xiaoshan Planning.

Lu Hong and 204 others claimed to be residents of the "Zurich Town" and "Orlando Town" communities in the Xianghu section of the Fengqing Avenue in Xiaoshan District. Due to dissatisfaction with the feasibility study report of the "Fengqing Avenue Renovation and South Extension (Jincheng Road Xianghu Road) Project" approved by the Xiaoshan District Development and Reform Bureau, administrative reconsideration has been filed with the Hangzhou Development and Reform Commission. During the review period, the Development and Reform Bureau of Xiaoshan District provided the "Review Opinion Letter" from the District Environmental Protection Bureau as its approval basis. The 204 people believed that the construction of the project involved in the case would have adverse effects on the two communities, and the administrative licensing behavior of the district environmental protection bureau infringed on their legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, they sued the bureau as the defendant and requested the court to revoke the above-mentioned "Review Opinion Letter".

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou City held in the first instance that, according to Article 22 of the "Zhejiang Province Construction Project Environmental Protection Management Measures" (hereinafter referred to as the "Measures"), after accepting the application for approval of environmental impact reports, in addition to the construction projects that need to be kept confidential according to law, the environmental protection administrative agency still needs to publicly disclose the acceptance information, the query methods for environmental impact reports, and the rights enjoyed by the public in a way that is convenient for the public to know, And solicit public opinions, and the deadline for soliciting public opinions shall not be less than 7 days. In this case, the environmental protection bureau of the defendant district stated that on April 23, 2012, it accepted the application for approval from a third-party urban construction company regarding the environmental impact assessment report. The environmental impact assessment report (draft for approval) prepared by the evaluation unit, Provincial Environmental Protection Design Institute, was commissioned by the third party to apply for the defendant's approval in June 2013. Therefore, even if the defendant did accept the application of a third party on April 23, 2012, as the environmental impact assessment report (draft for approval) that needs to be approved has not yet been prepared, the defendant's claimed acceptance behavior is also illegal. The defendant clearly stated in the Acceptance Notice of Commitment that the time when a third party applied for environmental impact assessment approval was June 28, 2012. On the same day, the defendant issued the defendant's "Review Opinion Letter" approving the environmental impact assessment report involved in the case, which clearly violated the relevant provisions of Article 212 of the Measures regarding the public disclosure and public investigation of the environmental impact assessment approval administrative authority in the approval process, and seriously violated legal procedures. Based on this, the judgment revokes the specific administrative action of the defendant in making the "Examination Opinion Letter". After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the basic premise for the environmental protection agency to accept the application for approval of the environmental impact report is that the report has been officially formed, and the environmental protection agency should follow the procedure of publicly disclosing the report and soliciting public opinions in accordance with the law before approval can be granted. The people's court shall strictly examine whether the administrative act has complied with legal and due process, and whether it fully respects the parties' right to information and expression. If it believes that the administrative act has procedural illegality or obvious impropriety, it has the right to confirm the illegality or revoke it. In recent years, some local governments and administrative agencies, in order to accelerate the process of urbanization, have spared no effort to violate administrative procedures and approve certain construction projects beyond the norm. Some have even sacrificed the environmental rights and interests of the people, causing adverse social impacts. Only by strictly following the law and regulations, and following procedures, can we truly promote the improvement of urban environment and social harmony and tranquility. In this case, there were obvious procedural violations by the district environmental protection bureau, and the time it claimed to accept the application for approval of the environmental impact assessment report submitted by the urban investment company has not yet formed a formal approval draft; The "Environmental Approval Publicity" published during the preparation of the environmental impact assessment report cannot replace the procedures and obligations required by the "Measures" for environmental protection agencies to publicly disclose and conduct public investigations on the environmental impact report after the applicant formally submits the environmental impact assessment report and related application materials. The court, based on the serious illegality of its procedures, decided to revoke the sued administrative act, which has a good demonstration effect on demonstrating procedural fairness and promoting administrative agencies to administer according to law.

5、 Junning Machinery Factory v. Environmental Protection Administration Punishment Case of Jin'an District Environmental Protection Bureau in Lu'an City

（1） Basic facts of the case

Junning Machinery Factory (hereinafter referred to as Junning Machinery Factory) in Jin'an District, Lu'an City, Anhui Province rented a house in the family area of Guanghua Factory in Lu'an on April 11, 2012, installed mechanical equipment, and engaged in the manufacturing of cast iron metal parts and metal product processing. However, the environmental impact assessment documents for the construction project were not approved in accordance with the law. During the production process, the factory uses emulsion to lubricate and cool the workpieces, resulting in wastewater, solid waste, and noise generation. However, apart from simply stacking and collecting solid waste, the factory has not treated any other pollution and has not built relevant environmental protection facilities. The residents of the residential area where the factory is located have repeatedly petitioned and reported that the noise and other pollution it produces seriously affect the normal life of the people. On August 5, 2012, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Jin'an District, Lu'an City (hereinafter referred to as the District Environmental Protection Bureau), through on-site inspection, investigation and evidence collection, and collective discussion, issued an administrative penalty decision and a deadline for completion of the environmental assessment procedures, ordering Junning Machinery Factory to stop production and complete the environmental assessment procedures within a specified period, and fined 50000 yuan. The factory is not satisfied with this and applies for administrative reconsideration. After reconsideration by the district people's government, it has decided to maintain the above two decisions. The factory still refuses to accept and filed an administrative lawsuit with the district environmental protection bureau as the defendant, requesting the court to revoke the aforementioned two decisions.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Jin'an District, Lu'an City held in the first instance that the plaintiff in this case, Junning Machinery Factory, engaged in mechanical processing and production in residential areas, resulting in pollutants such as wastewater, solid waste, and noise, which had a certain impact on the surrounding environment and residents' lives. Environmental impact assessment procedures should be completed in accordance with the law and environmental protection facilities should be constructed before it can be officially put into production. However, the plaintiff engaged in mechanical processing production without completing the environmental impact assessment procedures and constructing supporting environmental protection facilities, which clearly violated the above legal provisions. The environmental protection bureau of the defendant's district made an administrative penalty decision and a decision to make up for it within a prescribed time limit in accordance with the law, which meets the legal requirements and should be supported in accordance with the law. Therefore, the original lawsuit request was rejected.

After the appeal of Junning Machinery Factory, the Intermediate People's Court of Lu'an City held in the second instance that the appellant Junning Machinery Factory, as an individual industrial and commercial household, had its business scope approved and registered as "mechanical processing" by the industrial and commercial department. The "Classification and Management Catalogue for Environmental Impact Assessment of Construction Projects" issued by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China in 2008 clearly includes mechanical processing within the scope of environmental impact assessment management. Therefore, the appellant should first complete the environmental impact assessment procedures before production. The District Environmental Protection Bureau, based on the report, found that the appellant had not completed the environmental impact assessment procedures during the investigation and prosecution of environmental pollution. In accordance with relevant laws and regulations, after fulfilling the legal procedures, it made a decision to order the appellant to complete the environmental impact assessment procedures within a specified time limit in accordance with the law, which was not inappropriate. The appellant did indeed experience emission pollution during the processing and production process, and did not build environmental protection facilities, which had a certain impact on the surrounding environment. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulations on Environmental Protection Management of Construction Projects", the appellant ordered him to stop production and imposed a fine of 50000 yuan, which is legally valid. The second instance decision rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court, through judicial review, supports the legal treatment decisions made by environmental protection agencies against wastewater, solid waste, and noise emission enterprises, effectively safeguarding the environmental rights and interests of the people. In this case, the enterprise involved is engaged in an industry that requires environmental impact assessment procedures, but without obtaining any environmental impact assessment procedures, engages in metal processing and manufacturing in residential areas without authorization. The noise and pollutants generated during its production process have a certain impact on the living and learning of surrounding residents. Therefore, the environmental protection department shall impose administrative penalties on them in accordance with the law and require them to rectify within a specified period of time, in order to maintain a good living environment for citizens through legal and legitimate administrative law enforcement. The people's court shall support them in accordance with the law.

6、 Su Yaohua v. Announcement of the People's Government of Boluo County, Guangdong Province on Delimitation of the Scope of Prohibited Breeding Areas

（1） Basic facts of the case

At the end of 2006, Su Yaohua signed a "Land Contract" with the Agricultural Science and Technology Demonstration Farm in Boluo County, Guangdong Province. He operated a breeding farm and raised pig seedlings on the involved land, and successively obtained a "Tax Registration Certificate", a "Pollutant Discharge Permit", and a "Business License for Individual Industrial and Commercial Households". On March 22, 2012, the People's Government of Boluo County issued a notice on the inclusion of the Luofu Mountain National Modern Agricultural Science and Technology Demonstration Park in the prohibited breeding area (hereinafter referred to as the "notice"), requiring existing livestock and poultry farms (points) in the prohibited breeding area to relocate or clean up before June 30 of that year. Violators will be dealt with in accordance with relevant laws and regulations until they are closed.

Afterwards, both the Environmental Protection Bureau and the Animal Husbandry Bureau of Boluo County refused to pass the annual review of the pollution discharge permit and animal epidemic prevention certificate of the breeding farm based on the "Notice"; The County Land and Resources Bureau requires the breeding farm to close and demolish the livestock and poultry breeding houses on its own and restore the land to its original state, citing the failure of the farm to apply for land use procedures in accordance with regulations and the unauthorized construction of livestock and poultry breeding houses without the approval of the county people's government; The County Housing and Urban Rural Development Bureau has issued an "Administrative Penalty Notice" to the breeding farm, proposing to impose a deadline for demolition on the grounds that the buildings of the breeding farm have not obtained a construction project planning permit. Su Yaohua is not satisfied with the above-mentioned "Notice" made by the county people's government and has filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the court to make a judgment to revoke the "Notice".

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Huizhou City held in the first instance that according to the relevant provisions of the Guangdong Provincial Environmental Protection Regulations and the Animal Husbandry Law of the People's Republic of China, the defendant Boluo County People's Government has the right to designate the Luofu Mountain National Modern Agricultural Science and Technology Demonstration Park under its jurisdiction as a livestock and poultry breeding prohibition zone. The county government has notified and delivered the "Notice" to the relevant livestock farmers, and the "Notice" clearly informs the parties of their obligations to be fulfilled. The defendant's designation of a livestock and poultry prohibition zone fully complies with legal regulations, and therefore the judgment is upheld in accordance with the "Notice".

After Su Yaohua's appeal, the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court held in the second instance that the Luofushan National Modern Agricultural Science and Technology Demonstration Park bears the task of promoting agricultural science and technology and requires strict environmental protection conditions. The river near the Science and Technology Demonstration Park is connected to the local drinking water source, and livestock and poultry breeding in the Science and Technology Demonstration Park may cause air and water pollution. The People's Government of Boluo County has the right to designate the Luofu Mountain National Modern Agricultural Science and Technology Demonstration Park under its jurisdiction as a livestock and poultry breeding prohibition zone in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Livestock Law, the Measures for the Prevention and Control of Pollution from Livestock and Poultry Breeding, and the Guangdong Provincial Environmental Protection Regulations, in accordance with the needs of environmental protection. Based on this, the second instance judgment upheld the original judgment and dismissed the appeal.

However, the second instance court also held that Su Yaohua's operation of the breeding farm occurred before the issuance of the "Notice" and had already obtained the "Tax Registration Certificate", "Pollutant Discharge Permit", and "Individual Industrial and Commercial Business License" in accordance with the law. His legitimate business behavior should be protected by law. According to Article 8 of the Administrative Licensing Law, although the People's Government of Boluo County has the right to designate livestock and poultry breeding zones in accordance with the public interest of environmental protection, it should also compensate Su Yaohua for the losses suffered as a result in accordance with the law. The county people's government issued a notice requiring the farms to relocate or clean up on their own, which did not involve any compensation for Su Yaohua. It is obviously inappropriate. The basis for administrative penalties and non annual reviews imposed by departments such as environmental protection, national land, and housing construction on Su Yaohua and his breeding farm is the "Notice". The county government cannot deny Su Yaohua's legitimate business behavior on this grounds. Su Yaohua may submit a separate application for administrative compensation in accordance with Article 14 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Licensing Cases".

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court not only maintains the environmental protection supervision behavior of administrative organs, but also pays attention to the balance of interests, which better interprets the principle of trust protection in environmental administrative management activities. Although the people's governments at or above the county level have the right to designate livestock and poultry breeding zones according to the needs of environmental protection, it is strictly prohibited to engage in livestock and poultry breeding within the zones. They can also require existing livestock and poultry breeding farms (points) to relocate or clean up on their own, that is, change or withdraw the production and operation permits of farmers. However, at the same time, consideration should also be given to the issue of protecting the interests of livestock and poultry farmers who have lawfully operated before this. In accordance with the spirit of the principle of trust protection reflected in Article 8 of the Administrative Licensing Law, compensation should be given to legitimate farmers who have suffered losses due to changes or withdrawals of administrative licenses due to environmental public interests. In environmental administrative management activities, the government and environmental protection departments need to pay attention to the balance between public and private interests, and cannot only consider the needs of environmental protection and ignore the trust interests of legitimate operators. Especially, it is necessary to prevent the phenomenon of intentionally seeking various reasons to identify legitimate production and business activities as "illegal" in order to evade compensation responsibilities. Due to the plaintiff's failure to file a lawsuit for administrative compensation in this case, the second instance court, while maintaining the defendant's "Notice", clearly pointed out that the defendant did not handle the compensation matter, and even refused compensation on the grounds of the plaintiff's illegal behavior "afterwards", which was clearly inappropriate. The court also informed the plaintiff of the legal remedies available for filing a separate compensation application and that the handling was appropriate.

7、 Quanzhou Hongsheng Stone Industry Co., Ltd. v. Environmental Protection Administration of Jinjiang Environmental Protection Bureau

（1） Basic facts of the case

On July 5, 2012, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Jinjiang City, Fujian Province (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau) conducted an on-site inspection and found that Quanzhou Hongsheng Stone Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hongsheng Company) had water pollution prevention and control facilities that needed to be constructed during the stone processing and production process, and had not been inspected (qualified) by the environmental protection regulatory department before being put into production. Therefore, on July 20 of the same year, an administrative penalty decision was made, Order the company to stop production and impose a fine of RMB 60000. Hongsheng Company believes that the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau has issued a "Temporary Permit for Pollutant Discharge" to it, clarifying that the sewage discharge of its construction project has reached zero discharge standards, meets the requirements of project environmental protection, and should be considered as qualified for acceptance. Therefore, it applies for administrative reconsideration. After reconsideration, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Quanzhou City has decided to maintain the above administrative penalty decision. Hongsheng Company still refuses to accept and files an administrative lawsuit with the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau as the defendant, requesting the court to revoke the administrative penalty decision.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Jinjiang City held in the first instance that the plaintiff, Hongsheng Company, as a stone processing enterprise, inevitably produces pollutants such as sewage during the production process. Water pollution prevention and control facilities must be built and inspected to be qualified before they can be put into operation. The defendant city's environmental protection bureau issued a "Temporary Permit for Pollutant Discharge" to it, allowing it to temporarily discharge pollutants, which cannot be regarded as the plaintiff's water pollution prevention and control facilities passing the acceptance, and cannot exempt it from the obligation of the water pollution prevention and control facilities to be put into operation after passing the acceptance by the environmental protection regulatory department. The plaintiff continues production even though the Temporary Permit for Pollutant Discharge has expired, and the water pollution prevention and control facilities have not yet passed the acceptance inspection of the environmental protection department. Its behavior does not fall under the non punishment situation stipulated in Article 29 of the Administrative Penalty Law, and the illegal behavior is in a continuous state. The prosecution effect of the administrative penalty shall be calculated from the day when the illegal behavior ends. Before making the administrative penalty, the defendant had already made an "Administrative Penalty Notice" in accordance with the law and served it on the plaintiff, informing them of their rights. Therefore, the judgment upheld the administrative penalty decision made by the defendant. After Hongsheng Company appealed, the Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment on the same grounds.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court further clarified through the judgment that the issuance of the "Temporary Permit for Pollutant Discharge" by the environmental protection agency cannot be considered as a qualified acceptance of water pollution prevention and control facilities. Pollutant discharge enterprises that generate pollutants such as sewage must construct water pollution prevention and control facilities in accordance with the law and pass the acceptance by the environmental protection agency before they can be put into production. Otherwise, the environmental protection agency has the right to punish illegal pollutant discharge enterprises in accordance with the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law and local regulations and other normative documents. In this case, Hongsheng Company argues that the reason why the "Temporary Permit for Pollutant Discharge" obtained should be deemed as qualified acceptance of water pollution prevention and control facilities cannot be established. At the same time, there is a situation where the "Temporary Permit for Pollutant Discharge" has expired and production continues, and the permit allows it to discharge pollutants that do not include wastewater. The court is correct in supporting the administrative penalties of stopping production and imposing fines on it. In addition, in terms of legal application, this case clarifies that the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law should be applied to the discharge of wastewater based on the types of pollutants, while the Solid Waste Pollution Prevention and Control Law should be applied to the discharge of "liquid waste". This has practical significance in directly guiding environmental protection agencies in administrative law enforcement and people's courts in handling relevant cases.

8、 Mengdachi Automotive Systems (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd. v. Suzhou Industrial Park Environmental Protection Bureau Environmental Protection Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The Environmental Protection Bureau of Suzhou Industrial Park in Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as the Environmental Protection Bureau of the Park) has continuously received complaints from residents of Tinglan Jiayuan Community about the odor generated by surrounding enterprises affecting normal life and health. Starting from September 2013, it has been conducting a centralized investigation and rectification of the exhaust emissions of surrounding enterprises in the community, 58 enterprises, including Mengdachi Automotive Systems (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mengdachi Company), were designated as inspection targets. On September 30 of the same year, law enforcement personnel from the Environmental Protection Bureau of the park, together with law enforcement personnel from the Suzhou Environmental Supervision Detachment, went to Mengdachi Company for law enforcement inspection. The company's security guard refused to allow law enforcement personnel to enter the site for inspection on the grounds of not making a visit appointment. The law enforcement personnel immediately called 110 for help. At the request of the police and law enforcement personnel, the security guard contacted the company's environmental protection officer by phone and still refused to allow the law enforcement personnel to enter the scene for inspection on the grounds of not making an appointment. The law enforcement personnel of the Environmental Protection Bureau in the park believed that the best opportunity for inspection was lost due to obstruction, so they did not forcibly enter the site for inspection. On December 6, 2013, the Environmental Protection Bureau of the park mailed the "Administrative Penalty Prior Notice" to the company. Within the specified time limit, the company did not submit any defense opinions to the park environmental protection bureau. On December 20 of the same year, the Environmental Protection Bureau of the park made an administrative penalty decision, determining that on September 30, 2013, when the Environmental Protection Bureau of the park conducted a special on-site inspection of Mengdachi Company's exhaust emission enterprises in accordance with the law, the company refused to enter and carry out the inspection, In violation of the provisions of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution, which stipulate that the administrative department in charge of environmental protection and other supervisory and management departments have the right to conduct on-site inspections of pollutant discharge units within their jurisdiction, and the inspected units must truthfully report the situation and provide necessary information, a fine of RMB 40000 shall be imposed on the company in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Administrative Penalty Law and the Law on the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution. Mengdachi Company is not satisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the court to revoke the administrative penalty decision.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Gusu District, Suzhou City held in the first instance that the implementation of environmental protection law enforcement inspections by national environmental protection administrative agencies in accordance with the law is a power and responsibility conferred on law enforcement agencies by law. The internal management regulations of the plaintiff, Mengdachi Company, cannot compete with mandatory national legal provisions. The plaintiff obstructed or refused to carry out administrative law enforcement actions in accordance with the company's management regulations, and even though the public security police intervened on site, they still refused to inspect. Their behavior has constituted a refusal to conduct law enforcement inspections. According to the relevant provisions of the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Law, if the environmental protection administrative department or other supervisory and management departments refuse to conduct on-site inspections, the environmental protection administrative department or the supervisory and management departments prescribed by law may, based on different circumstances, order the cessation of the illegal act, make corrections within a time limit, give a warning or impose a fine of not more than 50000 yuan. The plaintiff refuses the defendant's law enforcement inspection without justifiable reasons, and fails to take timely remedial measures afterwards The subjective fault of corrective measures is significant. The fine imposed by the defendant on the plaintiff is within the statutory penalty range and is not inappropriate. Therefore, the judgment rejects the plaintiff's lawsuit request. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in the fact that the people's court has effectively safeguarded the legal inspection power and administrative law enforcement authority of environmental protection agencies through administrative trials. The judgment results are a meaningful warning and education for both the punished enterprises and other related pollution discharge enterprises. On site inspection is an important procedure and means for the environmental protection administrative department to collect evidence and stop illegal acts of environmental pollution. The behavior of the inspected unit refusing the on-site inspection by the environmental protection administrative department should be punished in accordance with the law.

9、 Xia Chunguan and Four Others v. Dongtai Environmental Protection Bureau Environmental Assessment Administrative License Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Xia Chunguan and four others are residents of Building 19, Jingfanxin Village, Dongtai Town, Dongtai City, Jiangsu Province. Their residence is adjacent to the Four Seasons Splendor Bathing Square (the third person in the original trial). The Four Seasons Splendor Bathing Plaza is a newly built bathing service project that leased business premises in the involved area as a business site. The project investment is 2.5 million yuan, including an environmental investment of 250000 yuan. The construction project was reported to the Dongtai Town People's Government of Dongtai City for approval on February 25, 2013, and the "Environmental Impact Declaration (Registration) Form for Construction Projects" was submitted to the Dongtai Environmental Protection Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau) on March 12, 2013, According to the opinions of the bureau regarding the need to entrust qualified environmental impact assessment units to prepare environmental impact report forms, Dongtai Environmental Science Research Institute is entrusted to prepare relevant report forms, which are then submitted to the bureau for approval. On April 1, 2013, the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau issued the "Approval Opinion on the Environmental Impact Report Form of the Four Seasons Splendor Bathing Plaza Bathing Service Project in Dongtai Town, Dongtai City" (hereinafter referred to as the "Approval Opinion"), agreeing to build a new bathing service project between Building 17 and Building 19 in Jingfan New Village, and to treat the waste and sewage generated during the operation of the project Specific requirements have been put forward for the impact of boundary noise on the quality of adjacent acoustic environments and the disposal of various types of solid waste. Xia Chunguan and four others believe that the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau made the "Approval Opinion" without holding a symposium, argumentation meeting, or soliciting public opinion, which violated their legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, they filed an administrative lawsuit and requested the court to revoke the "Approval Opinion".

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Dongtai City, Jiangsu Province held in the first instance that the defendant city's Environmental Protection Bureau has the authority to approve the environmental impact report form of construction projects in its jurisdiction. Article 47 of the Administrative Licensing Law stipulates that "if an administrative licensing directly involves a significant interest relationship between the applicant and others, the administrative organ shall inform the applicant and interested parties of the right to request a hearing before making the administrative licensing decision, It should not be excluded from "significant interest relationships". The residence of the plaintiff Xia Chunguan and four others in this case is adjacent to the third party's Four Seasons Splendor Bathing Square. The possibility of significant impact on the plaintiff's life cannot be ruled out due to the humidity, heat, and noise pollution generated after the newly built bathing project by a third party is put into operation. Before making the "Approval Opinion", the defendant should inform the four plaintiffs that they have the right to a hearing. Without informing them, they immediately made the "Approval Opinion", which violates legal procedures. Therefore, the judgment revokes the "Approval Opinion".

After the appeal of Four Seasons Splendor Bathing Square, the Yancheng Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that Article 22 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Law clearly stipulates the approval department, approval authority, and approval decision time limit for environmental impact assessment documents of construction projects, and does not specify the specific procedures for administrative licensing by the approval department. However, the Administrative Licensing Law sets clear requirements for the establishment and implementation procedures of administrative licensing. The sued administrative act in this case belongs to an administrative licensing act involving environmental impact assessment of construction projects, and should be approved in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the Administrative Licensing Law. As stakeholders directly adjacent to the approved project in this case, Xia Chunguan and four other families should be identified as having significant interests in the approved project. When reviewing and making administrative permits related to people's rights and interests, environmental protection agencies should inform Xia Chunguan and others of their rights to make statements, defend themselves, and hear their opinions. The original trial court found that the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau had not fulfilled its obligation to inform the hearing and violated the legal procedures without any impropriety. Therefore, the court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court, through strict and prudent examination, analyzed Article 47 of the Administrative Licensing Law on whether there is a "significant interest relationship" and the application conditions of the hearing procedure, and ultimately revoked the sued administrative action made by the environmental protection agency, safeguarding citizens' rights to know, to be heard, to speak, to defend, and to hear in the field of environmental management, greatly demonstrating procedural and judicial justice. This case, as a typical environmental protection administrative licensing case that embodies the principle of public participation, is also a livelihood case closely related to the interests of the people. The court of second instance revoked the approval opinion made by the environmental protection agency on the grounds that the bathing project approved by the environmental protection agency had a significant interest relationship with neighboring people and did not inform them of the right to state, defend, and hear in violation of legal procedures. This effectively safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of neighboring people, It has also strengthened judicial supervision of administrative power, guided and standardized similar approval behaviors of environmental protection agencies, promoted public participation in decision-making and supervision of environmental administrative licensing, and improved procedural awareness of administrative approval, which is of great significance.

10、 The Main Body Garden Industry Committee and Qianyang Jiayuan Industry Committee sued the Shanghai Environmental Protection Bureau for not accepting the approval decision of the environmental impact assessment report

（1） Basic facts of the case

On May 14, 2012, the Shanghai Municipal Planning and Land Resources Management Bureau issued the "Construction Project Site Selection Opinions" to the State Grid Shanghai Electric Power Company (hereinafter referred to as the Power Company) for the 500kV Hongyang Transmission and Transformation Project, clarifying the location of the project land. The plaintiff in the first instance, the main body garden (Phase II) community and Qianyang Jiayuan community are adjacent to the Hongyang substation site. On June 25th of the same year, the Shanghai Environmental Protection Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau) accepted the application for approval of the "Environmental Impact Report of the 500kV Hongyang Transmission and Transformation Project" (hereinafter referred to as the "Environmental Impact Assessment Report") submitted by the power company, and publicly announced the acceptance information online. On the same day, the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau commissioned the Shanghai Institute of Environmental Sciences to conduct a technical evaluation of the environmental impact assessment documents for the project. On July 5th of the same year, the Shanghai Institute of Environmental Sciences issued a technical evaluation report to the defendant, believing that the Environmental Assessment Report met relevant environmental protection technical standards and the evaluation conclusion was generally credible. On July 17 of the same year, the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau organized an expert consultation meeting, and the attending experts believed that the explanation and handling of issues reported by the public by the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau met relevant regulations; The impact of the Hongyang power transmission and transformation project on the surrounding environment meets relevant environmental standards, and the project will not affect the significant environmental interests of the surrounding residents. On August 6th of the same year, the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau reviewed and found that the "Environmental Impact Assessment Report" submitted by the power company met relevant requirements, and proposed to make an approval decision. Therefore, the proposed approval status of the project was announced on the "Shanghai Environmental Network". On October 22 of the same year, the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau issued the "Approval Opinions on the Environmental Impact Report of the 500kV Hongyang Transmission and Transformation Project" and agreed to the project construction. The owners' committee of Wenwen Garden (Phase II) in Yangpu District, Shanghai and the owners' committee of Qianyang Jiayuan believed that the construction of a high-voltage substation project should not be built near residential areas. The defendant did not consider the actual impact of the construction project on residents and made the approval, which was illegal. They applied for administrative reconsideration to the Ministry of Environmental Protection, and after the reconsideration authority upheld the approval decision, they filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai.

（2） Judgment results

The court of first instance held that after accepting the application of the power company, the defendant made a public announcement of the relevant situation, entrusted relevant units to conduct a technical evaluation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, and organized an expert consultation meeting. After reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, Technical Assessment Report, and other documents, the defendant made an environmental impact assessment approval decision and fulfilled the legal procedures. However, the approval time exceeded the time specified by regulations, which is a procedural flaw. The preparation unit of the "Environmental Impact Assessment Report" has corresponding qualifications. The "Environmental Impact Assessment Report" evaluates various environmental indicators of the involved construction project based on relevant preparation standards, and draws environmental impact assessment conclusions based on this, which comply with the requirements of environmental impact assessment technical specifications and legal regulations.

The plaintiff argued in the lawsuit that expert consultation meetings should not be used as a substitute for public participation in hearings, argumentation meetings, and symposiums during the defendant's approval process. Public participation in the preparation of the environmental impact assessment report by the power company did not meet legal requirements. The court believes that the defendant's public participation in the approval process of environmental impact assessment documents was supported by evidence such as expert consultation opinions and online public information. According to the Interim Measures for Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment, the environmental protection department can carry out public participation in the approval process of environmental impact assessment by consulting expert opinions. Therefore, the defendant's public participation activities are not inconsistent with the law. For the issue of public participation in the environmental impact assessment process, the "Environmental Impact Assessment Report" clearly records the distribution and distribution of 180 survey questionnaires, as well as public participation information disclosure, and provides explanations on whether public opinions are adopted or not. Therefore, the development of public participation activities during the preparation of environmental impact assessment documents meets the requirements of laws and regulations. Based on this, the first instance judgment rejected the original lawsuit request. After the plaintiff appealed, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that judicial review of public participation procedures is an important link in environmental protection administrative cases. Public participation is the fundamental way to realize people's rights, an important manifestation of the important status of the people, and an important guarantee for democratic and scientific decision-making. Especially since environmental protection issues are closely related to people's lives, it is necessary to strengthen supervision of public participation. In order to promote and regulate public participation in environmental impact assessment activities, the State Environmental Protection Administration has issued the "Interim Measures for Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment", which clearly stipulates the form and content of public participation. The review and approval of environmental impact assessment reports by the people's court shall be conducted strictly in accordance with relevant regulations. The first and second instance courts of this case have made public participation a key focus of their review, with clear trial ideas and guiding principles. The judgments and handling made comply with legal provisions.