China News Service, June 5th, the Supreme Law website announced ten typical cases of judicial protection of the ecological environment of the Yellow River Basin, including the defendant Jia Bozhou's criminal logging of forestry and civil public interest litigation, the defendants Hu Yanjun, Li Fuqiang, etc. The case of 6 people digging ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs, the defendant Gongga Pingcuo and other 3 people illegally hunted, killed precious and endangered wild animals in criminal and civil public interest litigation cases.
Attachment: Case details
1. Defendant Jia Bozhou's criminal case of stealing forest trees with civil public interest litigation
The defendant Jia Bozhou applied for cutting 50 cubic meters of wood for self-built houses. At the end of July 2018, without obtaining a forest harvesting permit, Jiabo Zhou lied that he had obtained the tree-cutting index, and asked someone to cut 39 spruce trees on the Liegean Mountain in Chong'er Township, with an accumulation of 44.87 cubic meters. On September 10 of the same year, Jia Bozhou took the initiative to surrender to the Ruoergai County Forest Public Security Bureau, truthfully confessed the crime facts, and then signed a pleading guilty plea statement. The People's Procuratorate of Ruoergai County of Sichuan Province filed a criminal public interest civil lawsuit in accordance with law.
The first instance of the People’s Court of Ruoergai County, Sichuan Province held that, without obtaining a forest harvesting permit, Jia Bozhou felled all the country’s forest spruce for the purpose of illegal possession, accumulating 44.87 cubic meters. crime. In view of the fact that Jiabo Zhou surrendered himself, the purpose of the illegal logging was to use it for self-built houses and to confess guilt and punishment, so the punishment was reduced. Ruoergai County People's Procuratorate filed an incidental civil public interest litigation according to law. The subject is qualified and the procedure is legal. It supports its public interest litigation request. The court of first instance convicted Jia Bozhou of committing the crime of stealing trees, sentenced him to two years in prison, three years of probation, and a fine of 2,000 yuan; Jia Bozhou replanted 390 spruce trees within six months after the sentence took effect.
This case is a case of criminal public welfare litigation caused by illegal logging. Ruoergai County is located in the upper reaches of the Yellow River and is an important water conservation area. The forest resources in this area play an important role in maintaining water and soil and maintaining biodiversity. Through the trial of the case, the people's court coordinated the use of criminal and civil liability methods, implemented the restorative justice concept, and took responsibility for the restoration of the ecological environment for replanting and rejuvenating the green while convicting Jia Bozhou of criminal responsibility. The mechanism has a positive role in effectively establishing the ecological protection awareness of "licensing for tree cutting and responsibility for tree destruction" and promoting the formation of a green lifestyle in which people and nature live in harmony.
2. The defendant Hu Yanjun, Li Fuqiang and other 6 persons robbed ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs
From September 2016 to July 2017, the defendant Hu Yanjun and Li Fuqiang and other six persons carried out burglary in many places such as Meiyuanzhuang North Street in Yindu District, Anyang City. Among them, two bronze diggers were stolen from Meiyuanzhuang North Street in Yindu District, which was later sold by Li Fuqiang for 3,000 yuan. According to the national cultural relics exit appraisal of Henan Station, this series of digging behaviors destroyed the cultural layer of the Shang Dynasty at the Ruins of Yinxu.
The first instance of the Intermediate People's Court of Anyang City, Henan Province held that Hu Yanjun, Li Fuqiang and other six persons had stolen ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs within the protection zone of the national key cultural relics protection unit, and their actions constituted the crime of stealing ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs. The court of first instance convicted 6 people including Hu Yanjun and Li Fuqiang of committing the crime of theft of ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs, and sentenced them to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from 15 years to 12 years, depriving them of political rights for two years, and fined them RMB 200,000 to 15 Ten thousand yuan.
The Yellow River culture is an important part of Chinese civilization. There are a large number of ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs in the Yellow River Basin. Among them, the ruins of the Yin Ruins are included in the World Cultural Heritage List and have important protection value. Humane remains, including ancient cultural sites, are extremely valuable in culture, science, history, aesthetics, education, and environment, and are an integral part of environmental protection. The judgment in this case reflects the people's court's policy of severely cracking down on the destruction of ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs, protecting, inheriting, and promoting the Yellow River culture, and has an educational guiding role in raising public awareness of cultural relics protection.
3. The defendant Gongga Pingcuo and other three people illegally hunted and killed precious and endangered wild animals in criminal and civil public interest litigation cases
In December 2017, the defendant Gongga Pingcuo and three others illegally killed three mares musk deer with a wire trap at a mountain ditch near Bangqiong Temple, Zhongda Township, Yushu City, and buried the body near the scene. The police of Yushu Forest Public Security Bureau arrested three people on the spot after receiving reports from the masses. After identification, the wild horse horse musk involved in the case is a national first-level protected animal, and the total value of the three horse musk deer is 90,000 yuan. The People’s Procuratorate of Yushu City, Qinghai Province filed a criminal public interest civil lawsuit in accordance with law.
The first trial of the People’s Court of Yushu City, Qinghai Province held that the actions of three people, including Gongga Pingcuo, constituted the crime of illegal hunting, killing of precious and endangered wildlife. 3. The defendant’s actions have damaged the public interest and shall bear the losses caused by the criminal acts to the country’s wild animal resources. The court of first instance ruled that Gongga Pingcuo and other three persons committed crimes of illegal hunting, killing of precious and endangered wildlife, and sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from five years to three years and six months, and fined; the three defendants jointly compensated 90,000 losses of wildlife resources Yuan, and openly apologize to the public.
This case is a case of criminal public interest litigation caused by illegal hunting, killing of precious and endangered wildlife. The protection of precious and endangered wildlife is of great significance for protecting biodiversity and maintaining the balance of the ecosystem. The Sanjiangyuan region is the birthplace of the Yellow River and is rich in biodiversity, but it also belongs to a fragile ecological zone. In this case, while severely punishing the crime of destroying wild animal resources, it also judged to compensate national economic losses and apologized in accordance with the law, exemplified the function of judicial protection of the public interest of the ecological environment, for the comprehensive prohibition and punishment of illegal wildlife transactions, and guide the public to establish conscious protection of wild animals As well as its habitat awareness, maintaining national biological security and ecological security is of great significance.
4. Yima City Chaoyang Zhifeng Breeding Plant v. Yima City, Henan Province Lianchuang Chemical Co., Ltd. Water Pollution Liability Dispute
Yima Chaoyang Zhifeng Breeding Factory (hereinafter referred to as Zhifeng Breeding Factory) is an individual industrial and commercial household registered in June 2017 with business registration, and its business scope is chicken breeding and freshwater fish breeding. The aquaculture plant is adjacent to the Jianhe River, a tributary of the Yellow River, and the water system of the fish pond infiltrates the Jianhe River. In February 2018, Henan Yima City Lianchuang Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lianchuang Chemical Co., Ltd.) dumped industrial wastewater into the upper waters of the Jianhe River, resulting in the water quality of fish ponds and fishing ponds in the Zhifeng aquaculture plant located in the lower reaches of the Jianhe River. All were contaminated and all the fry reared died. Zhifeng Breeding Factory appealed to the court, requesting that Lianchuang Chemical Company be compensated for the loss of dead fish in the fish pond, the loss of fishing operation, the loss of chicken farming, and bear the responsibility for repairing the fish pond, the environmental restoration of chicken farming, and the cost of environmental restoration.
The first trial of the People’s Court of Yima City, Henan Province found that the behavior of the Lianchuang Chemical Company’s discharge of pollutants into the water of Jianhe River and the fact that the fish cultured in the Zhifeng Breeding Factory died could be determined. The downstream section of the Jianhe sewage discharge has certain relevance, and Lianchuang Chemical Company should bear the burden of proof that there is no causal relationship between its sewage discharge behavior and the death of the fish cultured in the Zhifeng breeding plant. Lianchuang Chemical Company failed to provide evidence to prove that there was no causal relationship between its pollution behavior and the death of the fish farmed at Zhifeng Farm. Therefore, as an environmental polluter, Lianchuang Chemical Company should bear tort liability for Zhifeng Farm. Based on the appraisal opinion, the court of first instance ruled that Lianchuang Chemical Company compensated Zhifeng Breeding Plant for fish ponds and fishing ponds with a loss of 89,600 yuan and attorney fees, and assumed environmental repair costs of 24,400 yuan.
This case is a typical case of water pollution disputes caused by upstream discharge and downstream damage. The plaintiff in environmental infringement disputes shall bear the preliminary burden of proof for the correlation between the pollution act and the damage consequences. In this case, the people's court based on the original defendant's upstream and downstream relationships in geographical location, determined that the association was established and transferred the burden of proof that the causal relationship does not exist to the defendant, which is the correct application of the rules for the distribution of burden of proof of environmental tort causality. At the same time, the judge in this case made it clear that the victim can also make claims on the restoration of the ecological environment closely related to the protection of the legal rights and interests of his personal and property in private interest litigation. The restoration cost must be used to restore the ecological environment. The correct trial of this case has implemented the principle of liability for damage, and it also has a model role in how to handle the connection with the public interest of the ecological environment in private interest litigation.
V. Gansu Xingguo Hydropower Development Co., Ltd. v. Xiahe County People's Government of Gansu Province unilaterally rescinded the administrative agreement
In 2007, the People’s Government of Xiahe County, Gansu Province (hereinafter referred to as the Xiahe County Government) and Gansu Xingguo Hydropower Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xingguo Company) signed the “Contract for the Development and Construction Project of Wangertang Hydropower Station in Xiahe County” (hereinafter referred to as the hydropower project) (Contract), stipulating that Xingguo Company will develop and construct Wanggertang Hydropower Station in Daxiahe, a first-level tributary of the Yellow River, with a total installed capacity of 13,500 kilowatts. Xingguo Company has made preliminary preparations, but the project has not yet entered the construction stage. The Regulations on Ecological Environmental Protection of Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Gansu Province (hereinafter referred to as the State Regulations) promulgated in October 2013 stipulates that the development and construction of hydropower construction projects of 50,000 kilowatts and below are prohibited within the autonomous jurisdiction. In April 2016, Xiahe County Water and Hydropower Bureau informed Xingguo Company that it decided to prohibit the development of hydropower stations. In December of the same year, the Development and Reform Bureau of Xiahe County, the Water Affairs and Hydropower Bureau, the former Environmental Protection Bureau, and the former Land and Resources Bureau issued the "Statement on Prohibition of the Development of Wangertang Hydropower Station", canceling the development and construction project plan of the hydropower station involved in the case. In February 2017, the Xiahe County Government sent a letter to Xingguo Company to recover the construction and development rights of the hydropower project signed with it and cancel the related development and construction project plans. Xingguo Company sued to the People's Court of Gansu Mining Area, requesting confirmation that the Xiahe County Government had cancelled the contract involving the hydropower project in violation of the law.
The People’s Court of Gansu Mining District held that after the contract for the hydropower project was signed in June 2007 and the state regulations were promulgated and implemented in October 2013, Xingguo’s work was in preparation for the construction of the project, and the project did not enter the construction stage. Therefore, the construction and development of this project should be subject to the state regulations. Due to the promulgation and implementation of the state regulations, the legal basis for hydropower project contract performance is lost. According to the provisions of the state regulations, the Xiahe County Government withdraws the construction and development rights of hydropower projects that have not actually started construction, and cancels the relevant project plans. The court of first instance ruled that Xingguo Company rejected the lawsuit request of Xiahe County Government to confirm the violation of the contract of the hydropower project. The second instance of the Higher People's Court of Gansu Province upheld the judgment of the first instance.
This case is an administrative case arising from the implementation of an administrative agreement. During the implementation of an administrative agreement, if it is necessary to achieve public interests or administrative management goals, or when there are major adjustments in legal policies, the administrative agency has the right to unilaterally change and cancel the administrative agreement according to law, but as a result, the legal rights and interests of the relative are damaged, It should be compensated according to law. In this case, the Xiahe County Government, in accordance with the provisions of the state regulations, combined with the actual situation that the hydropower project has not entered the construction stage, unilaterally rescinding the hydropower project contract is a legal act to perform the ecological protection function of the Daxia River Basin and protect public interests. The People’s Court supports the Xiahe County Government’s decision according to law, which is conducive to regulating the development and utilization of hydropower resources in the upper Yellow River and effectively protecting the ecological environment of the Yellow River Basin.
6. Henan Provincial Environmental Protection Federation v. Liaocheng Dongran Chemical Co., Ltd.
From March to May 2015, Liaocheng Dongran Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dongran Chemical Company) arbitrarily handed over 15 thousand tons of waste sulfuric acid produced in its production process to Chen Wenling who did not have the qualification to transport and dispose of hazardous waste. Eight people were illegally disposed of and dumped in the 7 river ditches, such as the Lilong River (into the Majiahe River, a tributary of the Yellow River) near Degu Township, Nanle County, and the north of Chaizhuang Village, Qiankou Town, and Hancun Township, Qingfeng County. The waste acid belongs to the "HW34 waste acid" hazardous waste in the "National Hazardous Waste List", causing serious damage to surface water and soil environment, and directly causing the wheat seedlings and forest trees of the surrounding people to die. The Henan Provincial Environmental Protection Federation filed a civil public interest litigation, requesting that Dongran Chemical Company be restored to its original state or bear the cost of governance, as well as the appraisal and evaluation fees and emergency disposal fees that have occurred, and publicly apologize. The People’s Procuratorate of Puyang City supports the prosecution according to law.
After the mediation of the Puyang Intermediate People's Court of Henan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Puyang Intermediate People's Court), the two parties reached the following mediation agreement: 1. Dongran Chemical Company paid 6 million yuan for environmental restoration and treatment, the first phase of 3 million yuan was paid, and the second The period of 3 million yuan will be paid to the designated account of Puyang Intermediate Court before January 1, 2019. 2. Xue Ranlin, the legal representative of Dongran Chemical Co., Ltd., voluntarily promised: Xue Chunlin will open to the public the patent for utility model of CN201720746317.9, a device for recovering hydrogen fluoride, which can be implemented by any unit or individual in good faith. Once a commitment is made, it cannot be undone. 3. Dongran Chemical Company publicly apologized in Puyang municipal media. 4. Dongran Chemical Company paid 150,000 yuan in legal fees for the Henan Environmental Protection Federation. Puyang Intermediate People's Court announced the content of the mediation agreement according to law, and no individual or unit raised any objection during the announcement period. After examination, Puyang Intermediate People's Court determined that the content of the above agreement complied with the law and did not violate the public interest and was confirmed.
This case is a civil public interest litigation involving water organization and soil pollution environment prosecuted by social organizations and supported by the procuratorate. In this case, the enterprise handed over the waste acid produced to individuals without the qualification for transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes and dumped it illegally into many ditches in the Yellow River Basin, causing serious damage to the surface water and soil environment, and should bear environmental tort liability. The People's Court organized a settlement agreement between the two parties, which not only included the legal responsibility of the enterprise to bear the costs of environmental restoration and governance, and paid apology. The legal representative of the enterprise also actively opened its patents for environmental protection utility models to the society. The People's Court supports social organizations' right of public interest in litigation according to law and ensures that polluters fulfill their responsibility for environmental remediation in a timely manner. At the same time, they focus on maximizing environmental benefits and actively innovate trial execution methods. They have achieved good legal and social effects.
7. People's Procuratorate of Dongying District, Dongying City, Shandong Province v. Dongying Water Conservancy Bureau has not fully fulfilled its statutory responsibilities for river channel supervision
The People's Procuratorate of Dongying District, Dongying City, Shandong Province (hereinafter referred to as the Dongying District Procuratorate) found in its performance that the dams on both sides of the west section of Daxu Village, Wujia Dagou, Wuhu Town, Dongying District, and the east of Qiujia Village were illegally borrowed, and the damage was serious. Rehabilitation, endangering the flooding of rivers and the lives and property safety of surrounding people, issued a procuratorial recommendation in June 2018, recommending Dongying Municipal Water Conservancy Bureau to perform its duties in full in accordance with the law, restore the original state of the dam or take other remedial measures. According to the procuratorial recommendations, the Dongying Municipal Water Conservancy Bureau has repaired the relevant river sections, with a total length of 2757 meters along the shoreline. However, the follow-up supervision of the Dongying District Procuratorate found that the dams could not meet the design standards and flood conditions, and some of the repaired dams had broken dams and floods, causing all the farmland on both sides of the river to be damaged, and the ecological environment damage state was not treated. National interests and The phenomenon of continuous violation of social and public interests has not been effectively improved. The Dongying District Procuratorate filed an administrative public interest litigation, requesting confirmation that the Dongying City Water Conservancy Bureau had not fully performed its statutory responsibilities for river channel supervision; ordered it to continue to perform its duties and take remedial measures to repair the damaged dam involved in the case.
The People’s Court of Dongying District, Dongying City, Shandong Province held that the Dongying Municipal Water Conservancy Bureau, as the administrative authority, has the responsibility of supervising and managing the rivers involved in the case. Although the Dongying Municipal Water Conservancy Bureau has organized law enforcement personnel to stop the illegal borrowing of the embankments and embankments involved, no remedial measures have been taken. After receiving the procuratorial suggestions, although the Dongying Municipal Water Conservancy Bureau repaired the dam on the north bank of the river involved in the case and performed certain repair duties, it did not fully perform the statutory duties of river monitoring. The judgment of the court of first instance confirmed that the Dongying City Water Conservancy Bureau had failed to fully perform its statutory responsibilities for river channel supervision. The Dongying City Water Conservancy Bureau took remedial measures within six months from the date the judgment became effective.
This case is an administrative public interest litigation case caused by the protection of levees and dams in the Yellow River Basin. Flood risk is still the biggest threat to the Yellow River Basin, and the protection of flood control engineering facilities is an important link to ensure the long-term stability of the Yellow River. In this case, although the administrative competent authority performed certain repair responsibilities after receiving the procuratorial suggestions, the dams involved in the case still failed to meet the design standards and flood conditions, and some of the repaired dams had dam breaks and floods. In response to the public interest litigation request filed by the procuratorial organ, the people’s court ruled that the administrative organ did not fully perform its legal duties and ordered it to continue to perform its duties and take remedial measures, which is conducive to supervising the administrative organ to perform its duties in a timely and comprehensive manner, and jointly maintaining the flood control engineering facilities. Safeguard the national interests, social and public interests, and the safety of life and property of the people along the Yellow River.
8. People's Procuratorate of Sanyuan County, Shaanxi Province v. Dacheng Town People's Government of Sanyuan County, Shaanxi Province has failed to fulfill its legal duties of environmental protection and pollution prevention
The area under the jurisdiction of Dacheng Town People's Government (hereinafter referred to as Dacheng Town Government) in Sanyuan County, Shaanxi Province is located along the northern bank of Qinghe River, a tributary of the Weihe River. In 2012, in order to optimize the environment of the town and solve the problem of direct sewage discharge, the Dacheng Town Government declared that it was approved for the project of "building a sewage treatment plant and sewage pipe network project in Dacheng Town", and completed the land acquisition of the sewage treatment plant and the construction of the surrounding wall Work, but the sewage treatment plant and sewage pipe network project has not been constructed, and the state of sewage discharge continues. The People’s Procuratorate of Sanyuan County (hereinafter referred to as the Sanyuan County Procuratorate) of Shaanxi Province issued a procuratorial recommendation to the Dacheng Town Government. The government of Dacheng Township did not reply within the prescribed time, nor did it start the construction of sewage treatment plant and sewage pipe network. The Sanyuan County Procuratorate then filed an administrative public interest litigation, requesting confirmation that the Dacheng Town Government failed to perform its environmental protection and pollution prevention duties in accordance with the law; ordered it to continue to perform its legal duties in accordance with the law, construct sewage treatment facilities and supporting piping networks, and ensure the discharge of sewage Meet the relevant standards.
The People’s Court of Sanyuan County, Shaanxi Province held in the first instance that the Dacheng Town Government had the legal responsibility to build a centralized rural sewage treatment facility and a public sewage pipe network. Sewage from four administrative villages and seven enterprises has been discharged into Qinghe River for a long period of time. After the Sanyuan County Procuratorate issued procuratorial recommendations, the Dacheng Town Government has not effectively solved the above problems, and the public interest has been in a state of damage, which has constituted an administrative omission that neglects to perform its legal duties. In view of the wide scope and large amount of the project, the construction period can be determined as 25 months with reference to the project feasibility study report. The judgment of the court of first instance confirmed that the Dacheng town government has not fully performed its statutory environmental protection and pollution prevention and control activities and violated the law, and limited it to the completion of the construction of the centralized sewage treatment facilities and public sewage pipeline network of Dacheng Town in Sanyuan County within 25 months after the judgment came into effect. Ensure that the sewage discharged into the Qinghe River meets the discharge standards.
This case is an administrative public interest litigation case caused by the construction of rural sewage centralized treatment facilities and sewage pipe network in the Yellow River Basin. The construction of rural sewage treatment facilities and pipeline networks is an important aspect of combating water pollution prevention and control, and is also the due responsibility for promoting the improvement of rural human settlements and building beautiful villages. In this case, the Dacheng Town Government neglected to perform its statutory duties. The project involved in the case had not been started after approval, resulting in the long-term discharge of sewage directly into the Qinghe River. The accepted court judged in accordance with the law to support the procuratorial organ’s appeal, and after the judgement came into effect, it jointly dispatched personnel to the project construction site to continue to supervise, prompting the project involved in the case to be completed and put into use on time, showing the people’s court and the people’s procuratorate Social and public interests are the goal orientation, give full play to the judicial function, supervise and support administration according to law, effectively solve the outstanding problems of the rural environment, and ensure the implementation of the rural revitalization strategy.
9. The People's Procuratorate of Lanxian County of Shanxi Province v. Lanxian Water Conservancy Bureau has not fulfilled its legal duties of environmental protection and pollution prevention
Shanxi Lanxian Changheng Coal Coke Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Changheng Company) project field is located in the quasi-protection area of Fenhe Reservoir drinking water source. In September 2017, the Lanxian People’s Procuratorate of Shanxi Province (hereinafter referred to as the Lanxian Procuratorate) issued a procuratorial proposal to the Lanxian Water Conservancy Bureau, recommending that it prevent Changheng Company from setting up private drains in the Lanhe River (a branch of the Fenhe River). The act of discharging sewage. On October 14 of the same year, the Lanxian Water Conservancy Bureau made an administrative penalty decision on Changheng Company, ordering the company to remove the sewage outlet before October 20, 2017, and impose a fine of 100,000 yuan. In March 2018, Lanxian Water Resources Bureau applied to the People's Court for compulsory execution. The Lanxian People’s Court of Shanxi Province held that the Lanxian Water Conservancy Bureau, as the water administrative department, has the right to enforce administratively according to law, so it ruled that its application should not be accepted. The Lanxian Procuratorate filed an administrative public interest lawsuit, requesting confirmation that the Lanxian Water Conservancy Bureau did not perform the statutory duties of removing the private drain of Changheng Company in accordance with the law;
The first trial of the Linxian County People’s Court in Shanxi Province held that the Lanxian Water Conservancy Bureau was the water administration department of the Lanxian People’s Government. Changheng Company set up the sewage outlet without approval, and the Lanxian Water Conservancy Bureau should order the demolition within a time limit; Although the Lanxian Water Conservancy Bureau has performed its corresponding duties, the sewage is still being discharged so far, and it should be deemed that the Lanxian Water Conservancy Bureau has not performed its duties properly. The court of the first instance confirmed that the Lanxian Water Conservancy Bureau did not perform the statutory duties of dismantling the private drains of Changheng Company in accordance with the law; it ordered the Lanxian Water Conservancy Bureau to take remedial measures and fully perform the legal duties in accordance with the law. The Lanxian Water Conservancy Bureau refused to accept the first-instance judgment and filed an appeal with the Intermediate People's Court of Luliang City, Shanxi Province. After the court of second instance ruled that it was allowed to withdraw its appeal.
This case is to stop the administrative public interest litigation case caused by illegal sewage discharge in the quasi-protection area of the drinking water source. The safety of drinking water is related to the health of the people, and the state has established a system for protecting drinking water sources. Although the quasi-protection zone for drinking water sources belongs to the periphery of the drinking water source protection zone, in accordance with the Water Pollution Prevention Law and relevant regulations, the direct or indirect discharge of wastewater into the waters in the quasi-protection zone must meet the national and local discharge standards. Fenhe River is the main tributary of the Yellow River, and Fenhe Reservoir is an important source of drinking water for the downstream and surrounding residents. The project of Changheng Company is located in the quasi-protection area of the drinking water source of Fenhe Reservoir. The act of privately setting drains and discharging sewage not only pollutes the environment, but also seriously threatens the drinking water safety of the people. The People's Procuratorate filed a public interest litigation, and the People's Court made administrative judgments in accordance with the law, supervised the full performance of the administrative organs with compulsory enforcement power, and ensured the strict implementation of the legal system of drinking water source protection zones.
10. The Judicial Confirmation of Ecological Environment Damage Compensation of Zhengzhou Ecological Environment Bureau and Henan Xinzhou Construction Engineering Co., Ltd.
In November 2017, Henan Xinzhou Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xinzhou Company) illegally dumped toxic soil in Longhu Town, Xinzheng. After identification, the soil contains pesticide factors such as hexadecimal and DDT, and a total of 148,900 cubic meters of contaminated soil. After the relevant departments took emergency control measures, ascertained the facts of pollution, and identified the consequences of the damage, according to the authorization of the Zhengzhou Municipal People’s Government of Henan Province, the Zhengzhou Ecological and Environmental Bureau negotiated with Xinzhou Company and reached the "Limuzui Village, Longhu Town, Xinzheng City". Agreement on Compensation for Ecological Environmental Damage in Soil Pollution Cases with Liukou Village. The main contents are: (1) Xinzhou Company compensates emergency treatment and investigation and evaluation, soil remediation effect evaluation, supervision and acceptance, restorative compensation and other expenses totaling RMB 929.82 million. (2) Xinzhou Company shall bear the responsibility for soil remediation, and entrust a third party to conduct the harmless disposal of contaminated soil until the assessment meets the standard; otherwise, the liquidated damages shall be calculated based on 130% of the estimated cost of soil remediation by judicial appraisal, which shall be 190 million yuan. It should also bear full legal responsibility for the damage. (3) If Xinzhou Company fails to perform or does not fully perform the agreement, Zhengzhou Ecological Environment Bureau has the right to apply to the Intermediate People's Court of Zhengzhou, Henan Province for enforcement. After the agreement is reached, both parties apply to the people's court for confirmation that the agreement is valid.
After accepting the application for judicial confirmation, the Intermediate People's Court of Zhengzhou City, Henan Province announced the contents of the "Eco-environmental Damage Compensation Agreement for Soil Pollution Cases in Limuzui Village and Liukou Village, Longhu Town, Xinzheng City" according to law. During the announcement period, no objections or opinions were received. After reviewing the authenticity and legality of the agreement, the Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Henan Province found that the agreement reached by the applicant met the conditions for judicial confirmation, and then ruled that the agreement was valid; Apply for enforcement.
This case is a case of judicial confirmation of compensation for ecological and environmental damage caused by soil pollution. The negotiation agreement involved the identity of the obligee and obligor, the facts, degree and relevant evidence of the ecological and environmental damage, the opinions of both parties on the ecological damage appraisal report, the ecological environmental damage restoration model and the payment method, the duration of the restoration project, restoration The contents of the evaluation of the effects and the responsibilities of non-performance or incomplete performance of the agreement are fully agreed, which not only ensures the restoration of the ecological environment damage, but also facilitates the acceptance of public supervision and fully protects the public’s right to know and participate. The court of the case actively explored the procedures and rules for judicial confirmation of the ecological environment damage negotiation agreement, and provided useful experience. Through judicial confirmation, the People's Court endowed the negotiation agreement with enforcement effectiveness, promoted the active role of consultation in the compensation of ecological and environmental damages, guided enterprises to actively perform the main responsibility of ecological and environmental protection, strengthened soil pollution control and restoration, and promoted the restoration of ecological protection of river basins.