Supreme Court's review of "Changzhou drug land case" makes public interest litigation straighten
Point of view
The Supreme Law initiated a retrial and gave a clear attitude to the legal difficulties of this case and released a clear signal, which will undoubtedly accelerate the arrival of fairness and justice and establish a reference template for environmental public interest litigation.
On May 6, a reporter from the Beijing News learned from the China Green Development Council that the organization had received a civil ruling issued by the Supreme People's Court and decided to review the "Changzhou Drug Land Case". Prior to this, the plaintiffs "China Green Hair Development Association" and "Friends of Nature" lost the first-instance trial. Although the second-instance trial supported some of the litigation claims, the plaintiff still applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial due to unclear fact-finding and incorrect application of law.
In 2016, the Changzhou "Foreign Language School Poisonous Land Case" was a complete setback. The first-instance judgment rejected all the environmental protection organization's lawsuits and demanded that the two plaintiffs pay more than 1.89 million yuan in litigation fees, which caused a stir in public opinion.
Although the second trial ended the “high price litigation fees” and changed the apology of the three polluting enterprises, it continued to dismiss the core environmental protection public welfare organization's core lawsuit request to eliminate the impact of pollution and restore the ecology.
Such a case of environmental public interest litigation not only hurts environmental protection organizations, but also does not meet public expectations. Obviously the polluter has determined that the pollution responsibility has been determined, but the polluting enterprises do not need to pay for the pollution and pay for the previous pollution.
The core issue in this case is whether the local government is responsible for pollution control of the land it collects and stores. Should it implement the legal principle of “who pollutes who governs”? Can polluting enterprises “be formally responsible and substantially exempt from liability”? This question It must be clarified, otherwise it will release confusion signals for pollution control and environmental public interest litigation.
Today, the Supreme Court ’s trial of the “Changzhou Drug Land Case” not only reflects judicial responsibility, but also responds to public opinion and industry concerns. More importantly, the Supreme Court initiated the retrial, which may become a major turning point in this case. This releases a clear signal that may accelerate the arrival of fairness and justice, and establish a reference template for environmental public interest litigation.
The current situation is that many environmental organizations have a passion for promoting environmental public welfare, but their efforts are often defeated in the face of local protectionism. In previous environmental public interest litigation, environmental protection organizations have repeatedly encountered problems such as expensive identification, difficulty in obtaining evidence, and difficulty in trial. Environmental public interest litigation faces various tangible and invisible obstacles, making environmental protection organizations struggling.
In view of this, the Supreme Court's trial of the "Changzhou Drug Land Case" is exciting, and its demonstration value is self-evident. Of course, in order to truly enable environmental protection organizations to stand up in public interest litigation and eliminate local protectionism, it is necessary to further crack the lack of support for environmental public interest litigation systems, the lack of investigation of wrong cases, and the inadequacy and refinement of litigation rules In order to avoid human interference to the greatest extent, lower the "threshold" of environmental public interest litigation.
□ Jingquan (media person)