catalogue

1、 The Civil Public Interest Litigation Case of Four People, including the Natural Friends Environmental Research Institute in Chaoyang District, Beijing and the Fujian Green Homeland Environmental Friendship Center, suing Xie Zhijin and others for damaging forest land

2、 China Environmental Protection Federation v. Dezhou Jinghua Group Zhenhua Co., Ltd. Air Pollution Civil Public Interest Litigation Case

3、 Changzhou Environmental Public Welfare Association v. Chu Weiqing, Changzhou Boshel Material Recycling Co., Ltd. and other civil public welfare litigation cases of soil pollution

4、 Qu Zhongquan v. Shandong Fuhai Industrial Co., Ltd. Air Pollution Liability Dispute Case

5、 Shen Haijun v. The First Design and Research Institute of Mechanical Industry for Noise Pollution Liability Dispute Case

6、 Yuan Kewei v. Guangzhou Jiafu Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Noise Pollution Liability Dispute Case

7、 Liang Zhaonan v. China Resources Cement (Shangsi) Co., Ltd. Water Pollution Liability Dispute Case

8、 Zhou Hang v. Jingmen Mingxiang Logistics Co., Ltd. and Chongqing Tiefa Suiyu Expressway Co., Ltd. Water Pollution Liability Dispute Case

9、 Wu Guojin v. China Railway Fifth Bureau (Group) Co., Ltd. and China Railway Fifth Bureau Group Road and Bridge Engineering Co., Ltd. Noise Pollution Liability Dispute Case

10、 Li Cai v. Hainan Haishi Industrial Co., Ltd. Dust Pollution Liability Dispute Case

Case 1: A civil public interest lawsuit against Xie Zhijin and four others for damaging forest land, filed by the Natural Friends Environmental Research Institute in Chaoyang District, Beijing and the Fujian Green Home Environmental Friendship Center

【Basic Case】

On July 29, 2008, Xie Zhijin and four others expanded the mining scope without approval from the administrative department. They adopted methods such as peeling the mountain skin from the top of the mountain, dumping the abandoned rocks generated by mining to the bottom of the mountain, and constructing work sheds below the mining pond, severely damaging 28.33 acres of forest vegetation. On July 28, 2014, Xie Zhijin and others were sentenced to criminal penalties for illegally occupying agricultural land. On January 1, 2015, Beijing Chaoyang District Friends of Nature Environmental Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as Friends of Nature) and Fujian Green Home Environmental Friendship Center (hereinafter referred to as Green Home) filed a lawsuit, requesting that the four defendants bear the responsibility of restoring forest vegetation within a certain period of time and compensate 1.34 million yuan for the loss of ecological and environmental service functions; If the forest vegetation cannot be restored within a certain period of time, more than 1.1 million yuan in ecological environment restoration costs should be compensated; To jointly reimburse the plaintiff for the assessment fees, legal fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in the litigation.

【 Judgment result 】

The Intermediate People's Court of Nanping City, Fujian Province held in first instance that Xie Zhijin and four others occupied forest land for mining, which not only severely damaged the original vegetation of 28.33 acres of forest land, but also caused losses in ecological service functions during the period from forest vegetation damage to restoration. They should jointly bear the tort liability of restoring forest vegetation and compensating for ecological function losses in accordance with the law. Subsequently, it was ordered that Xie Zhijin and four others restore the damaged 28.33 acres of forest land within five months from the effective date of the judgment, replant trees on the forest land and care for it for three years. If the forest vegetation cannot be restored within the specified period, they will jointly compensate for the ecological environment restoration cost of over 1.1 million yuan; Joint compensation of 1.27 million yuan for the loss of ecological and environmental service functions, used for in-situ or off-site ecological restoration; We jointly paid the plaintiff more than 165000 yuan in assessment fees, lawyer fees, and other reasonable expenses for litigation expenses. The Fujian Provincial Higher People's Court upheld the first instance judgment in the second instance.

【Typical significance】

This case is the first environmental civil public interest lawsuit in China after the implementation of the new environmental protection law, involving issues such as the examination of the plaintiff's subject qualification, the assumption of environmental restoration responsibility, and compensation for the loss of ecological and environmental service functions. The judgment in this case, in accordance with Article 58 of the Environmental Protection Law and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation Cases, confirms the main qualifications of Friends of Nature and Green Home as plaintiffs in public interest litigation; Taking ecological environment restoration as the focus, the defendant was ordered to restore the damaged forest land function within a time limit, replant trees on the forest land and care for three years, in order to achieve the goal of restoring forest vegetation and restoring the ecological environment as soon as possible; For the first time, the judgment clearly supported the compensation request for service function loss during the period from ecological environment damage to restoration, increased the illegal cost of ecological destruction, and reflected the value concept of protecting the ecological environment. The judgment has a good evaluation, guidance, and demonstration role.

Case 2: China Environmental Protection Federation v. Dezhou Jinghua Group Zhenhua Co., Ltd. Air Pollution Civil Public Interest Litigation Case

【Basic Case】

Dezhou Jinghua Group Zhenhua Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhenhua Company) is an enterprise engaged in the manufacturing of glass and glass deep processing products, located in the urban area of Dezhou, Shandong Province. Although Zhenhua Company has invested funds in the construction of desulfurization and dust removal facilities, there are still two chimneys that have exceeded the standard for a long time, causing air pollution and seriously affecting the lives of surrounding residents. In 2014, Zhenhua Company was named and criticized by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, and was punished multiple times by the environmental protection administrative department of Shandong Province. However, it continued to exceed the standard and discharge pollutants into the atmosphere. On March 25, 2015, the China Environmental Protection Federation filed a lawsuit requesting that Zhenhua Company immediately stop excessive emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere and install air pollution prevention and control facilities. Production and business activities can only be carried out after passing the acceptance and putting into use by the environmental protection administrative department; Compensation of 20.4 million yuan for losses caused by excessive discharge of pollutants and 7.8 million yuan for losses caused by refusal to correct excessive discharge of pollutants, and payment of compensation funds to the local government's financial special account for the control of atmospheric pollution in Dezhou City; Make public apologies to the society in provincial and above media; Bear the expenses incurred for litigation, inspection, appraisal, expert witnesses, lawyers, and other litigation expenses in this case.

After the Intermediate People's Court of Dezhou City, Shandong Province accepted this case, it served the civil lawsuit and other litigation materials to Zhenhua Company, announced the acceptance of the case to the society, and informed the Dezhou Environmental Protection Bureau of the acceptance of the case. The People's Government of Dezhou City and the Environmental Protection Bureau of Dezhou City actively support and cooperate with the trial of this case, and jointly hold a coordination meeting with the first instance court. Through the linkage and coordination between judicial authorities and environmental protection administrative authorities, Zhenhua Company has shut down all production lines, built a new factory in the Tianqu Industrial Park far from residential areas, and initiated the relocation of the old factory area. On September 21, 2015, the court organized a cross-examination between the plaintiff and the defendant, where they met and exchanged opinions on relevant evidence materials, the defendant's rectification situation, and other issues. The case is still under trial.

【Typical significance】

The trial of environmental public interest litigation cases should coordinate the relationship between environmental protection and economic development in accordance with the law, support government departments in exercising their responsibilities in environmental governance and ecological restoration, and urge enterprises to better operate and develop on the basis of assuming environmental protection obligations and responsibilities. This case is the first environmental civil public interest lawsuit filed by the people's court against air pollution after the implementation of the new Environmental Protection Law. After the court accepts the case, in accordance with the requirements of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation Cases" and the "Notice of the Supreme People's Court, the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and the Ministry of Environmental Protection on the Implementation of the Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation System", timely communication with government departments is carried out, and the coordination and linkage role of judicial and administrative law enforcement is played to urge the defendant to stop polluting behavior in a timely manner and actively shut down the production line, Actively rectifying, relocating, and relocating from the urban area have prevented further expansion of pollution and damage, promoting the transformation and development of Zhenhua Company into an energy-saving and environmentally friendly enterprise. Although this case has not yet been concluded, the above practices comply with the trial principles and work requirements of environmental public interest litigation cases, and the phased trial results achieved are worthy of recognition.

Case 3: Changzhou Environmental Public Welfare Association v. Chu Weiqing, Changzhou Boshel Material Recycling Co., Ltd. and other civil public welfare litigation cases of soil pollution

【Basic Case】

From September 1, 2012 to December 11, 2013, with the consent of Changzhou Bosheer Material Recycling Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bosheer Company), Chu Weiqing engaged in the disposal and operation of "oily filter residue" using the company's premises and equipment. During this period, Wuxi Jinke Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinke Company), knowing that Chuweiqing does not have the qualifications to dispose of hazardous waste, allowed it to use the hazardous waste business license and illegally purchase oil sludge and filter residue from Wuxi Xiangyue Petroleum Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiangyue Company), Changzhou Refining and Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Refining Company) and other places in the name of the company, to extract waste lubricating oil for sale and profit, Causing serious soil pollution to the Bosch company site and surrounding areas. On July 18, 2014, the Changzhou Environmental Public Welfare Association filed a lawsuit requesting that Chu Weiqing, Boshel Company, Jinke Company, Xiangyue Company, and Refining Company jointly bear the compensation liability for soil pollution losses.

【 Judgment result 】

After the Intermediate People's Court of Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province accepted the case, a collegial panel consisting of environmental protection experts serving as people's jurors was formed to hear the case. According to legal procedures, the environmental pollution damage situation was entrusted for appraisal, and three sets of ecological environment restoration plans were issued. The plans were publicized around the contaminated site, and public opinions were collected in the form of on-site questionnaires. Finally, the ecological environment restoration plan was determined based on public opinions and the case situation. The court held that Chu Weiqing violated national regulations by borrowing the hazardous waste management qualification of Jinke Company and illegally disposing of oil sludge and filter residue purchased from Xiangyue Company and Refining Company in the name of the company, polluting the surrounding environment; Boshel Company is aware that there is no hazardous waste business license for storage and cleaning, which provides a place and convenience for storage and cleaning to continuously carry out environmental pollution behavior, resulting in the occurrence of environmental pollution damage on its site; Xiangyue Company and Refining Company, aware of the illegal behavior of Chu Wei Qing, still illegally entrusted the hazardous waste generated in their production and operation process to Chu Wei Qing for disposal. They did not pay the disposal fee and also charged Chu Wei Qing for the hazardous waste. The combination of the actions of the five defendants leads to the occurrence of damages, which constitutes joint infringement and shall jointly bear the liability for infringement. Thus, it was ordered that the five defendants pay over 2.83 million yuan in environmental restoration compensation to the special account for ecological and environmental legal protection public welfare funds in Changzhou, Jiangsu Province. After the first instance judgment was delivered, none of the parties appealed. After the judgment takes effect, the first instance court shall organize the procuratorial organs, environmental protection administrative departments, appraisal institutions, and the parties to the case to jointly agree on a third-party custody plan, and the third party shall specifically implement the ecological environment governance and restoration caused by pollution.

【Typical significance】

Environmental infringement cases have strong professionalism and technicality. For issues such as pollutant identification, loss assessment, causal relationship identification, and environmental ecological restoration plans, it is usually necessary to make judgments from a professional and technical perspective. During the trial process, the court in question invited environmental protection experts to serve as people's assessors, entrusted professional institutions to conduct appraisal and evaluation, and produced ecological environment restoration plans, effectively playing the auxiliary and supportive role of technical experts and professional institutions. In addition, the affected court made the soil remediation plan public and listened to public opinions, ensuring effective public participation in environmental remediation work; Introducing a third-party governance model and delegating environmental remediation to professional companies through market-oriented operations is not only beneficial for resolving regulatory issues related to enforcement of judgments, but also for improving pollution control efficiency.

Case 4: Qu Zhongquan v. Shandong Fuhai Industrial Co., Ltd. Air Pollution Liability Dispute Case

【Basic Case】

In 1995, Qu Zhongquan contracted a collective land to plant cherries. In 2001, Shandong Fuhai Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fuhai Company) moved to the adjacent area of Quzhongquan Cherry Orchard to engage in the production and processing of aluminum products. In April 2009, Qu Zhongquan filed a lawsuit requesting Fuhai Company to stop emitting exhaust gas and compensate for its losses of over 5.01 million yuan. To prove his claim, Qu Zhongquan submitted evidence such as the inspection records of the notary office in Muping District, Yantai City, and the fluorine content testing report of cherry leaves issued by the Yantai Agricultural Product Quality Testing Center. After joint selection and sampling by both parties, the first instance court entrusted the Central Laboratory of Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences to test the fluoride content in cherry leaves. The test report showed that the closer the cherry leaves were to the factory area of Fuhai Company, the higher the fluoride content in cherry leaves. Fuhai Company provides evidence such as a fluorine content test report for cherry leaves, a fluoride content test report for the atmosphere in the factory area, and the climate situation from February 2008 to May 2009 issued by the Mouping District Meteorological Bureau in Yantai City, to prove that it did not engage in pollution discharge. The damage to the Quzhongquan Cherry Orchard was caused by climate reasons.

【 Judgment result 】

The Intermediate People's Court of Yantai City, Shandong Province ordered Fuhai Company to stop discharging fluoride in the first instance and compensated Qu Zhongquan with over 2.04 million yuan in losses. Qu Zhongquan and Fuhai Company both appealed against it. The Shandong Provincial High People's Court ordered Fuhai Company to compensate Qu Zhongquan with over 2.24 million yuan in the second instance. Fuhai Company is dissatisfied and applies for a retrial to the Supreme People's Court.

The Supreme People's Court has reviewed and found that the notarized inspection records and testing reports submitted by Qu Zhongquan, along with relevant popular science materials, national standards, and testing reports issued by professional institutions entrusted by the first instance court, are mutually corroborating and sufficient to prove that Qu Zhongquan's cherry orchard has been damaged, and that there is a correlation between Fuhai Company's pollution discharge and damage. The burden of proof has been completed. As the infringer, Fuhai Company's conclusion that the closer it is to the factory area, the lower the concentration in the fluoride content detection report of cherry leaves submitted is contrary to common sense; The detection report of atmospheric fluoride content in the factory area was made on May 7, 2010, and is not related to the facts to be proven in this case; Weather reasons cannot deny the causal relationship between pollution discharge behavior and damage. Considering that there are indeed reasons such as adverse weather that affect cherry production, the second instance court, at its discretion, ordered Fuhai Company to bear 70% of the compensation liability for Qu Zhongquan's losses, and found that the facts and applicable laws were not inappropriate.

【Typical significance】

Article 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environmental Tort Liability Disputes stipulates that if the infringee requests compensation in accordance with Article 65 of the Tort Liability Law, it shall provide evidence that the polluter has discharged pollutants; Damage caused by the infringed party; Evidence of the correlation between pollutants emitted by polluters or their secondary pollutants and damage. The judgment in this case is based on the above judicial interpretation. While applying Article 66 of the Tort Liability Law on the inversion of the burden of proof for causal relationships, it requires the infringee to bear the burden of proof for the correlation between the pollution act and the damage result. This is of typical significance for refining the allocation of burden of proof between the infringee and the polluter, balancing the interests of both parties, and reflecting the judicial practice in promoting the formation of legal rules Efforts and contributions in exploring solutions that meet legal values. At the same time, the judgment in this case used popular science materials, national standards, and expert reports from professional institutions to make factual determinations, and reasonably divided the scope of responsibility based on the degree of fault and the magnitude of the causal force. It provided a demonstration in the methods of factual investigation and the logic and argumentation of legal application.

Case 5: Shen Haijun v. The First Design and Research Institute of Mechanical Industry for Noise Pollution Liability Dispute

【Basic Case】

Shen Haijun is a retired engineer from the First Design and Research Institute of Mechanical Industry (hereinafter referred to as the Mechanical Design Institute) and resides in the dormitory of the institute. To increase the delivery pressure of the heating pipeline in the hospital, the Mechanical Design Institute installed a booster pump on the outer side of the east wall of Shen Haijun's residence. In 2014, Shen Haijun filed a lawsuit in court alleging that the booster pump affected his rest. Later, both parties reached a settlement, and Shen Haijun withdrew his lawsuit. The Mechanical Design Institute moved the booster pump to the east side of the heat exchange station outside the east wall of Shen Haijun's residence. In 2015, Shen Haijun sued the court again on the grounds that the booster pump affected his sleep and required zero noise in his residence. He demanded that the Mechanical Design Institute stop the infringement, dismantle the booster pump that generated noise, and compensate him with 10000 yuan for mental damage. According to Shen Haijun's application, the court entrusted the Bengbu Environmental Monitoring Station to monitor the booster pump, and the results showed that all indicators of indoor noise in Shen Haijun's bedroom did not exceed the specified limit.

【 Judgment result 】

The People's Court of Yuhui District, Bengbu City, Anhui Province held in the first instance that after monitoring, the booster pump, as the main sound source being tested, did not exceed the specified limit values for all indoor noise indicators in Shen Haijun's bedroom during normal continuous operation. Shen Haijun's lawsuit that the booster pump must have zero noise at night has no legal basis. The first instance court ruled to dismiss Shen Haijun's lawsuit request. The Intermediate People's Court of Bengbu City, Anhui Province upheld the first instance judgment in the second instance.

【Typical significance】

Article 2 of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Noise Pollution stipulates that environmental noise pollution refers to the phenomenon where the generated environmental noise exceeds the national environmental noise emission standards and interferes with the normal life, work, and study of others. Unlike the principle of no fault liability applicable to general environmental torts, the subjective fault of the environmental noise tortfeasor must have an appearance that exceeds the national noise emission standards in order to bear the liability for noise pollution infringement. Therefore, whether it exceeds the national environmental noise emission standards is the basis for determining whether the emission behavior constitutes noise pollution infringement. After entrusted appraisal, it was found that during the normal operation of the booster pump, the indoor noise in Shen Haijun's bedroom did not exceed the national standard and did not constitute noise pollution. The Mechanical Design Institute does not assume any liability for noise pollution infringement. The judgment in this case is conducive to guiding the public to bear a certain range and limit of tolerance obligations while protecting their legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law, balancing the interests of all parties, promoting neighborhood harmony, and jointly improving the quality of life.

Case 6: Yuan Kewei v. Guangzhou Jiafu Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Noise Pollution Liability Dispute Case

【Basic Case】

Yuan Kewei purchased a commercial house developed by Guangzhou Jiafu Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiafu Company). In February 2014, Yuan Kewei entrusted the Testing and Analysis Center of Guangzhou Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, to monitor the environmental quality of the houses he lived in. The environmental monitoring report issued by the center shows that the noise level of Yuan Kewei's bedroom at night exceeds the maximum noise limit standard specified in the "Code for Sound Insulation Design of Civil Buildings" (GB50118-2010). Yuan Kewei believes that residential elevators are located near their houses, and the elevator equipment is directly installed on the shared wall with their living room without any sound insulation treatment, resulting in noise pollution in the elevators. Bring a lawsuit to the court and demand that Jiafu Company be held liable for infringement. Jiafu Company advocates that the quality of the elevators involved in the case is qualified, and that the residential design, elevator design, and elevator installation comply with national regulations and have been inspected and accepted by government departments, so it should not bear any liability for infringement.

【 Judgment result 】

The People's Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province held in the first instance that Jiafu Company claimed that the elevator involved in the case was put into use only after its design, construction, and installation met the requirements of relevant national departments and passed the acceptance inspection. Moreover, the elevator undergoes annual inspections and meets the standards, but this can only prove that the elevator can operate safely. The house purchased by Yuan Kewei has been monitored to have a noise level exceeding the national standard, which constitutes noise pollution. The evidence provided by Jiafu Company is insufficient to prove that it is not responsible for the excessive noise of the involved houses or that there is a situation of reducing responsibility. The first instance court ordered Jiafu Company to take corresponding sound insulation and noise reduction measures on the elevator involved within 60 days, so that the noise of Yuan Kewei's residential house reaches the maximum noise limit specified in the "Code for Sound Insulation Design of Civil Buildings" (GB50118-2010); If the deadline is not met, Yuan Kewei will be compensated at a rate of 100 yuan per day; Pay Yuan Kewei a spiritual comfort fund of 10000 yuan. The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court in Guangdong Province upheld the first instance judgment in the second instance.

【Typical significance】

Elevators are a part of civil buildings, and their design, construction, and installation should be adjusted according to the "Code for Sound Insulation Design of Civil Buildings" (GB50118-2010). After monitoring, the noise level of the elevator involved has exceeded national standards, constituting noise pollution. According to Article 66 of the Tort Liability Law, Jiafu Company shall bear the burden of proof in cases where there is no causal relationship between its actions and the damage or where the liability is reduced. Jiafu Company has failed to provide evidence to prove that Yuan Kewei was at fault or intentionally responsible for the excessive noise of the elevator involved in the case, nor can he prove that the excessive noise was caused by third parties, force majeure, legitimate defense, or emergency avoidance. There is no legal requirement for him to not assume responsibility or reduce responsibility, and he should bear corresponding tort liability. The trial results of this case serve as a good warning, especially for producers and operators who should pay attention to whether the noise meets the standards during the design, construction, installation, and daily operation of mechanical equipment, and consciously assume their due social responsibility for environmental protection.

Case 7: Liang Zhaonan v. China Resources Cement (Shangsi) Co., Ltd. Water Pollution Liability Dispute Case

【Basic Case】

On October 5, 2011, the Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Bureau of Shangsi County received a report from Liang Zhaonan that the Xialiao Reservoir contracted by Liang Zhaonan had caused a large number of fish deaths due to sewage pollution discharged from the China Resources Cement Plant affiliated with China Resources Cement (Shangsi) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Company). The bureau, together with the county environmental monitoring team and the Siyang Town government, has formed a joint investigation team to conduct multiple on-site investigations. The investigation report shows that the water quality of the downstream reservoir has turned yellow and turbid, and dead fish have appeared on the water surface near the bank and other water surfaces around the reservoir; The drainage ditch of China Resources Cement Plant continuously discharges cement, coal and other powder ash into the reservoir. According to the "On site Inspection (Investigation) Record" issued by the Shangsi County Fishery Management Station, China Resources Cement Plant is located upstream of the reservoir, and there are ditches that directly discharge into the reservoir. The Shangsi County Aquaculture, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Bureau, together with the Siyang Town Government, Liuyin Village, Longhuai Village, and China Resources Corporation, conducted on-site investigations and found that the fish in the reservoir were mostly dead. Liang Zhaonan filed a lawsuit claiming that China Resources Corporation should bear the liability for infringement. After being entrusted by the court for appraisal and confirmation, Liang Zhaonan's fish loss was over 110000 yuan.

【 Judgment result 】

The People's Court of Shangsi County, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region held in the first instance that China Resources Corporation had a source of pollution entering Liang Zhaonan's aquaculture reservoir, and the fish in the reservoir were basically dead. The investigation report issued by the Shangsi County Aquaculture, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Bureau was formed after three on-site investigations by the joint investigation team and inquiries from surrounding residents. There were no illegal situations, and the investigation report concluded that there was a causal relationship between the death of fish in the downstream reservoir and the pollution discharge of China Resources Company, which should be accepted. China Resources Corporation has engaged in pollution infringement behavior, and the evidence provided by it is not sufficient to prove that there is no causal relationship between its behavior and the damage. Therefore, it should bear the liability for environmental pollution infringement and compensate for the loss of fish death in the downstream reservoir. The first instance court ordered China Resources Corporation to compensate Liang Zhaonan for economic losses of over 110000 yuan. The Intermediate People's Court of Fangchenggang City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region upheld the first instance judgment in the second instance.

【Typical significance】

Environmental pollution has the characteristics of perishability and diffusion. After a pollution event occurs, relevant evidence must be collected and fixed as soon as possible. The administrative department in charge of environmental protection shall seal up, detain, record, test, and punish polluters, pollutants, sewage discharge equipment, environmental media, etc. according to its authority or upon the application of the parties involved. The administrative documents formed will help the people's court accurately determine the facts of the case. After the pollution accident in this case occurred, relevant government departments intervened in a timely manner, established a joint investigation team, issued an investigation report, fixed and preserved evidence, and laid a solid foundation for the court to accurately determine the facts of the case. The court in question, based on the investigation report, determined that China Resources Corporation had engaged in pollution behavior. The fact that there was damage caused by fish death in the reservoir contracted by Liang Zhaonan did exist, and there was a causal relationship between fish death in the reservoir and China Resources Corporation's pollution discharge. This case has a demonstrative role in promoting administrative and judicial linkage, playing the role of administrative documents in proving, and solving the problem of difficulty in providing evidence in environmental infringement cases. Article 10 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environmental Tort Liability Disputes stipulates that "the investigation reports, inspection reports, testing reports, evaluation reports, or monitoring data of environmental pollution incidents issued by departments responsible for environmental protection supervision and management or their entrusted institutions, after being cross-examined by the parties, can serve as the basis for determining the facts of the case." This further confirms the approach of this case.

Case 8: Zhou Hang v. Jingmen Mingxiang Logistics Co., Ltd. and Chongqing Tiefa Suiyu Expressway Co., Ltd. Water Pollution Liability Dispute Case

【Basic Case】

On February 20, 2012, the oil tank transport vehicles owned by Jingmen Mingxiang Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mingxiang Logistics Company) experienced an accident on the Chengdu Chongqing Ring Expressway managed by Chongqing Railway Development Suiyu Expressway Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Suiyu Expressway Company), resulting in a transformer oil leakage. After the accident, Suiyu Expressway Company promptly handled the traffic accident and scattered sand to deal with the oily road section. After on-site inspection by the Environmental Protection Bureau of Tongliang County, it was found that the road surface, approximately 1 kilometer long and 10 meters wide, was contaminated by leaked transformer oil. The leaked transformer oil flows along the slope of the highway into the rainwater ditch below the highway, and through the culvert flows into the fish pond contracted by Zhouhang. There is a large area of oil layer floating on the surface of the fish pond. According to the monitoring by the Tongliang County Environmental Monitoring Station, the concentrations of volatile phenols and petroleum in the fish ponds exceeded the standard. After appraisal, the economic value of the fish lost by Zhouhang is over 350000 yuan. Zhou Hang filed a lawsuit demanding that Mingxiang Logistics Company and Suiyu Expressway Company bear the liability for infringement and compensate for their losses.

【 Judgment result 】

The People's Court of Yubei District, Chongqing held in first instance that the transportation vehicle of Mingxiang Logistics Company had an accident on the Chengdu Chongqing Ring Expressway managed by Suiyu Expressway Company, resulting in the leakage of transformer oil and the death of fish in the fish pond contracted by Zhou Hang. Mingxiang Logistics Company should bear the liability for infringement. As the manager of the accident section, Suiyu Expressway Company should fully understand the surrounding conditions of its control and management of road production. In the event of a large amount of transformer oil leakage caused by a traffic accident that may lead to water pollution incidents, it should promptly initiate emergency plans and take effective measures to control the pollution source and prevent the expansion of damage. After the accident, Suiyu Expressway Company only handled the road traffic situation in an emergency manner and did not clean up the oil pollution around the section, causing further damage to the fish pond contracted by Zhouhang. It should bear secondary compensation liability based on its fault level. Sui ordered Mingxiang Logistics Company to bear 70% of the compensation liability, and Suiyu Expressway Company to bear 30% of the compensation liability. The Chongqing First Intermediate People's Court upheld the first instance judgment in the second instance.

【Typical significance】

This case is a dispute over environmental pollution and property damage caused by an accident on a highway. With the extension of highways and the increase of vehicles in China, the ecological environment protection issues of highways and the areas on both sides are becoming increasingly prominent. The environmental protection of highways and their routes is not only the responsibility of the administrative department in charge of environmental protection, but also requires the joint participation of vehicle owners and users, as well as the construction and operation units of highways. In this case, although Suiyu Expressway Company is not the perpetrator of a pollution accident, in the event of a water pollution incident caused or likely to be caused by a highway accident, it should take effective measures to deal with it in accordance with the law and report to the relevant competent authorities. If Suiyu Expressway Company fails to fulfill the above obligations and causes further losses, it shall bear corresponding compensation responsibilities. The judgment in this case has a normative and guiding role in raising awareness, improving mechanisms, and fulfilling environmental protection obligations for the operation and management units of highways.

Case 9: Wu Guojin v. China Railway Fifth Bureau (Group) Co., Ltd. and China Railway Fifth Bureau Group Road and Bridge Engineering Co., Ltd. Noise Pollution Liability Dispute Case

【Basic Case】

During the construction period of China Railway Fifth Bureau (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as China Railway Fifth Bureau) and China Railway Fifth Bureau Group Road and Bridge Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Road and Bridge Company), a large number of laying hens died, soft eggs and deformed eggs were produced at Wu Guojin Farm, which is about 20 to 30 meters away from the construction site. Wu Guojin hired three experts in animal medicine and veterinary medicine to investigate at the breeding farm, believing that the laying hens did not die from the disease, but were startled by sudden gunfire or long-term noise, causing the eggs to enter the abdominal cavity and form peritonitis. Wu Guojin filed a lawsuit requesting compensation of over 1.5 million yuan from China Railway Fifth Bureau and Road and Bridge Company.

【 Judgment result 】

The People's Court of Qingzhen City, Guizhou Province held in the first instance that there was a causal relationship between the loss of laying hens in Wuguojin Farm and the noise generated by the construction of China Railway Fifth Bureau and Road and Bridge Company, and China Railway Fifth Bureau and Road and Bridge Company should bear corresponding tort liability. According to the allocation rules of burden of proof, Wu Guojin should prove the specific amount of his losses. Although the evidence provided by Wu Guojin cannot prove the specific amount of losses suffered, China Railway Fifth Bureau and Road and Bridge Company have no objection to the fact that the noise generated during construction caused Wu Guojin's losses and are willing to assume compensation responsibility. But in this case, the first instance court, based on the principle of fairness, established a calculation model using the breeding manual and basic data provided by expert witnesses, calculated the losses suffered by Wu Guojin, and ordered China Railway Fifth Bureau and Road and Bridge Company to compensate more than 350000 yuan. The Intermediate People's Court of Guiyang City, Guizhou Province, affirmed the first instance court's practice of determining the actual losses in this case based on the breeding manual and expert opinions, and finally ordered China Railway Fifth Bureau and Road and Bridge Company to compensate Wu Guojin with over 450000 yuan.

【Typical significance】

The determination of the amount of environmental damage often requires identification through technical means. However, in cases where appraisal is difficult, the cost of appraisal is too high, or it is not appropriate to conduct appraisal, the people's court can refer to expert opinions, combine the specific circumstances of the case, and reasonably determine the amount of loss in accordance with due process. In this case, Wu Guojin was able to prove that he started a chicken farm first, and the construction behavior of the second defendant was later. During the construction period of the second defendant, the laying hens he raised died abnormally, and he submitted an expert argumentation report and his self recorded number of laying hens died. However, it is difficult to provide evidence to prove the specific amount of damage. In this case, the court in question did not mechanically dismiss Wu Guojin's lawsuit request due to insufficient evidence. Instead, it fully considered the particularity of noise pollution and, based on the causal relationship between the damage to the laying hens and the construction noise of the two defendants, notified experts to testify in court on professional issues such as the loss of laying hens in this case, fully utilizing expert testimony, breeding manuals, and other basic data to determine the loss of laying hens, And with the help of experts, a calculation model for the loss of laying hens was established, and the amount of loss was determined, which supported some of Wu Guojin's claims and made a beneficial attempt to determine the amount of environmental damage.

Case 10: Li Caicai v. Hainan Haishi Industrial Co., Ltd. Dust Pollution Liability Dispute Case

【Basic Case】

Hainan Haishi Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Haishi Company), without legal approval, has leased collective land to build a lime sand environmentally friendly brick factory since 2010. The factory building is located next to the Li Cai Sheep pen and the west side of the house. Li Caicai believed that the lime dust discharged from the production and operation of Haishi, steam generated by the boiler, waste smoke and equipment noise caused damage to the goats and the planted jackfruit leaves, so he filed a lawsuit with the court to request Haishi to stop the infringement, stop the lime crushing and boiler burning operations, and compensate for the losses caused by the loss of forage value of its jackfruit leaves and grass under the forest, as well as its health damage The total loss caused by water well pollution and miscarriage of pregnant sheep is 53000 yuan.

【 Judgment result 】

After the People's Court of Qiongshan District, Haikou City, Hainan Province accepted the case, Li was instructed to entrust a legal aid lawyer and waive the case acceptance fees that he had to pay in advance. The presiding judge promptly went to the scene to investigate and film relevant evidence of the pollution behavior of the fixed sea stone company, and obtained evidence of the sea stone company's failure to handle environmental impact assessment, illegal land occupation, and pollution discharge from the environmental protection and land management departments. Considering the high cost and long cycle of damage appraisal, as well as the clear basic facts and legal relationships in this case, in order to properly resolve the dispute in accordance with the law, the first instance court, based on clarifying the basic facts of the case, made it clear that Li Caicai and Haishi Company voluntarily reached a mediation agreement, and Haishi Company compensated Li Caicai for a one-time loss of 53000 yuan, and paid the compensation on the spot when signing the mediation agreement. After the mediation agreement takes effect, the first instance court issued a judicial recommendation to the environmental protection authority to supervise Haishi Company to rectify within a specified period of time, eliminate pollution, and prevent subsequent environmental damage.

【Typical significance】

Mediation is a fundamental principle that runs through civil litigation. In the process of hearing environmental infringement cases, the people's court should coordinate social forces, improve mediation mechanisms, promote the formation of a comprehensive force to prevent and resolve social conflicts, and fully play the leading, promoting, and safeguarding role of the judiciary in the diversified resolution mechanism of environmental resource disputes. On the basis of identifying facts and distinguishing right from wrong, the court in this case actively explores the intersection of the personal interests of the parties and the fundamental interests of ecological environment protection. While safeguarding personal legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law and facilitating a settlement between Li Caicai and Haishi Company, it pays attention to environmental governance and restoration, and issues judicial suggestions to the environmental protection authorities, promoting the organic connection between judicial and administrative law enforcement, Jointly strengthen the protection of the ecological environment. In addition, the court in question has lawfully waived the plaintiff's pre paid litigation fees, guided the plaintiff to entrust legal aid lawyers, integrated legal aid with judicial assistance, and guided the parties to express their demands rationally and safeguard environmental rights and interests in accordance with the law. This practice is also worthy of recognition.