The Yangtze River is the mother river of the Chinese nation and an important support for the sustainable development of the Chinese nation. General Secretary Xi Jinping has always attached great importance to the ecological and environmental protection and economic and social development of the Yangtze River Basin. In order to thoroughly practice Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization and Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, the people's courts have always adhered to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, persisted in serving the overall situation and administering justice for the people, tried all kinds of cases of environmental pollution and ecological damage in accordance with the law, innovated and applied a variety of methods for adjudication and enforcement, and coordinated the promotion of high-level protection of the ecological environment and high-quality economic and social development in the Yangtze River Basin.
In order to effectively guide the people's courts at all levels to accurately implement the "Yangtze River Protection Law of the People's Republic of China", promote the transformation of rules that are beneficial to the judicial protection of river basins, and unify the adjudication concepts and adjudication rules of environmental resources, the Supreme People's Court has selected and determined five special guiding cases on the protection of the Yangtze River. Among them, 5 were environmental public interest litigation cases that safeguard the public interest. Guiding Case No. 4, "Liu Mougui's Criminal Incidental Civil Public Interest Litigation Case of Illegal Mining", clarifies the rules for centralized jurisdiction and compensation for ecological and environmental damage in criminal cases of illegal sand mining across administrative regions. Guiding Case No. 212, "A Case of Civil Public Interest Litigation Attached to the Criminal Case of Illegal Fishing of Aquatic Products by Huang Mouhui, Chen Mou and Eight Others", clarifies the responsibility for the restoration of the ecological environment by means of scientific methods to achieve the enhancement and release of aquatic products in the criminal case of illegal fishing, and the rules for mitigating punishment for actively restoring the ecological environment. Guiding Case No. 213, The Case of Bankruptcy Liquidation to Bankruptcy Reorganization of Shanghai XX Port Industrial Co., Ltd., clarifies the rules for determining common benefit debts for environmental pollution control in bankruptcy reorganization cases, and regards environmental pollution control as an important factor to be considered in realizing the value of reorganization. Guiding Case No. 8, Kunming Min Paper Co., Ltd. et al., Case of Civil Public Interest Litigation Attached to Criminal Pollution of the Environment, clarifies the rules for denial of corporate personality and joint and several liability of shareholders in ecological and environmental infringement cases. Guiding Case No. 214, Suining County People's Procuratorate v. Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau, Case of Failure to Perform Environmental Protection Supervision Duties, clarifies the territorial responsibility rules of the administrative department of ecology and environment for the prevention, control, and management of cross-regional dumping of hazardous waste.
In the next step, the people's courts will continue to deeply practice Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization and Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, ensure the national strategy of protecting the Yangtze River with high-quality environmental justice services, and make new and greater contributions to comprehensively promoting the construction of a beautiful China and accelerating the modernization of harmonious coexistence between man and nature!
Law [2023] No. 178
Notice of the Supreme People's Court on the Release of the 38th Batch of Guiding Cases
To the High People's Courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government, the Military Courts of the People's Liberation Army, and the Branch Courts of the Production and Construction Corps of the High People's Court of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region:
After discussion and decision by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People's Court, five cases, including Liu Mougui's criminal case of illegal mining attached to civil public interest litigation (Guiding Case No. 212-216), are hereby released as the 38th batch of Guiding Cases for reference in the trial of similar cases.
Supreme People's Court
October 2023, 10
Guiding Case No. 212
Liu Mougui illegal mining
Civil public interest litigation cases attached to criminal cases
(Discussed and passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People's Court, released on October 2023, 10)
Key words: criminal/civil public interest litigation attached to criminal law/illegal mining/illegal sand mining/centralized jurisdiction across administrative divisions/compensation for ecological and environmental damage
Referee Points
1. Criminal cases of illegal sand mining that cross administrative divisions may be under the jurisdiction of the people's courts related to the criminal acts, such as the place where the illegal mining was carried out, the place of origin, the place of transit, and the destination of the transportation of mineral products.
2. For the joint crime of illegal sand mining that integrates mining and sales, the competent court shall be determined in accordance with the principle of facilitating the ascertainment of the facts of the crime and facilitating the restoration of the ecological environment. If one of the joint crimes is a crime committed by one person or a link of the crime is tried by the competent court, the criminal case of illegal sand mining in the combination of procurement and sale can be heard by that court.
3. Where illegal sand mining causes damage to the ecological environment in river basins, and the procuratorate initiates an attached civil public interest lawsuit in a criminal case, requesting that the defendant bear responsibility for ecological environment restoration, compensate for losses, and related expenses, the people's court is to support it in accordance with law.
Basic facts of the case
On September 2021, 9, the defendant Liu Mougui (living in Wuxue City, Hubei Province) leased all of his Eyinhe No. 5 capacity ship to another defendant, Liu Mougui (sentenced, living in Xunyang District, Jiujiang City, Jiangxi Province), and the two agreed to jointly mine river sand in the Yangtze River. Before the sand mining, Liu and the defendant in the other case, He Moudong (who had been sentenced and lived in Chaisang District, Jiujiang City, Jiangxi Province), conspired in advance to have He Moudong purchase the river sand stolen by Liu at a low price.
Between September 2021 and September 9, 10, defendant Liu Mougui and defendants Liu, Xiong, and Yang (all sentenced) in another case, illegally mined about 9,26 tons of river sand in the waters of the Henghe Estuary in the Huangmei section of the Yangtze River in Hubei Province, and then transported it to a wharf in Chaisang District, Jiujiang City, Jiangxi Province and sold it to He Moudong, who then doped the river sand with machine-made sand and sold it to the outside world. During the sand mining period, Xiong clearly knew the above situation, but still provided Liu with assistance such as driving a vehicle, participated in the illegal mining of river sand, and obtained illegal benefits of about 4500,15000 yuan. Yang was hired by Liu to supervise the unloading of sand on the 518 capacity ship of the Yinhe River, and obtained illegal benefits of about 3000,<> yuan.
At about 2021:9 on September 30, 518, after receiving reports from the masses, the Jiujiang Police Station of the Water Branch of the Yangtze River Shipping Public Security Bureau seized the Eyinhe No. 518 capacity ship that was undergoing illegal mining operations in the waters of the Henghe Estuary in the Huangmei section of the Yangtze River. After weighing, the Eyinhe 1443 capacity ship was loaded with 09.6 tons of stolen river sand. According to the "Notice of the Hubei Provincial People's Government on Strengthening the Management of River Sand Mining", the mining ban period in the main stream of the middle reaches of the Yangtze River in Hubei Province is set from June 1 to September 9 and when the water level of the corresponding river section exceeds the warning water level. The illegal sand mining in this case was committed in the waters of the Henghe estuary in the Huangmei section of the Yangtze River, located in the waters of Xinzhou, Hubei Province, the main stream of the middle reaches of the Yangtze River.
According to the Jiujiang Development and Reform Commission of Jiangxi Province, the market price of illegally mined river sand is 80 yuan/ton. Defendants Liu Mougui, Liu, Xiong, He Moudong, and Yang illegally mined 5943,09.475447 tons of sand, worth 2,35823.41 yuan. After identification, the impact of illegal mining of Yangtze River sand by Liu Mougui, Liu Mou and others on the ecological environment of the illegal sand mining area is divided into damage to the quality of the water environment, damage to the structure of the riverbed, damage to water conservation and damage to aquatic biological resources. Among them, the loss of the ecological service function of the Yangtze River was 26767,48.62590 yuan, and the restoration cost of the ecological environment damage of the Yangtze River was 89,<>.<> yuan, totaling <>,<>.<> yuan.
It was also ascertained that Liu, Xiong, He, and Yang had been sentenced by the Ruichang City People's Court of Jiangxi Province for the crime of illegal mining. Defendant Liu Mougui was arrested on June 2022, 6.
The Jiujiang Intermediate People's Court designated the Ruichang Municipal People's Court of Jiangxi Province to hear the case. After the People's Procuratorate of Ruichang City, Jiangxi Province made an announcement in accordance with law, no organs and relevant organizations provided for by law initiated civil public interest litigation at the completion of the notice period. The Ruichang Municipal People's Procuratorate then filed a criminal attached civil public interest lawsuit with the Ruichang Municipal People's Court in accordance with the law.
Adjudication Results
On December 2022, 12, the People's Court of Ruichang City, Jiangxi Province, with the (22) Gan 2022 Xingchu No. 0481 Criminal Attached Civil Judgment, found that the defendant Liu Mougui committed the crime of illegal mining, and sentenced him to three years imprisonment and a fine of RMB 304,110000; order the defendant Liu Mougui to jointly return 135000,50000 yuan for the loss of national mineral resources (the amount of compensation for the other defendants has been deducted) with Liu, Xiong, He Moudong and others within 35823 days of the judgment taking effect; Defendant Liu Mougui has returned 41,26767 yuan for the loss of national mineral resources and handed it over to the state treasury; Within 48 days of the judgment taking effect, Liu Mougui, the defendant in the attached civil public interest lawsuit, together with Liu, Xiong, Yang, and He Moudong, jointly and severally compensated 62590,89.<> yuan for the loss of the Yangtze River's ecological service functions and <>,<>.<> yuan for the restoration of the Yangtze River's ecological and environmental damage, totaling <>,<>.<> yuan; After the judgment was pronounced, there was no appeal or counter-appeal, and the judgment had taken legal effect.
Reasons for the Adjudication
The effective judgment of the court held that the defendants Liu Mougui and Liu Mougui violated the provisions of the Mineral Resources Law, did not obtain a mining license, and jointly illegally mined river sand worth 475447,2.<> yuan during the mining ban period of the Yangtze River through prior conspiracy, and the circumstances were particularly serious, and they should be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of illegal mining, and it is a joint crime. The prosecution was convicted of the offence charged.
On the issue of jurisdiction, upon investigation, it was found that neither the place where the defendant Liu Mougui's criminal acts were committed nor his place of residence was in Jiujiang City, Jiangxi Province, but the acts of the co-defendants in the joint crime occurred within the jurisdiction of Jiujiang City, and the co-defendants had already been sentenced by the Ruichang City People's Court of Jiangxi Province in advance. If the criminal act of one person or the crime of one link in a joint crime is tried by the competent court, the criminal case of integrated sand mining and sales constituting a joint crime can be heard by that court. Considering the systematic destructiveness of illegal sand mining in practice, and based on the principle of facilitating the investigation of criminal facts and facilitating the restoration of the ecological environment, the Jiujiang Intermediate People's Court designated the case to be heard by the Ruichang Municipal People's Court, which is in accordance with the law.
Defendant Liu Mougui directly arranged for the implementation of sand mining, playing a major role in the joint crime. Liu Mougui truthfully confessed the facts of his crime at trial, and there were confessional circumstances, so he may be given a lighter punishment in accordance with law. However, he had been criminally punished for illegal mining, and now he has committed the crime of illegal mining, and he will be punished more heavily. Liu Mougui partially compensated for the loss of national mineral resources, and was given a lighter punishment as appropriate. Liu Mougui and others illegally mined river sand in the Yangtze River, causing the loss of national mineral resources, and should be jointly refunded. In addition to the amount of compensation that has been refunded by the co-defendant and the amount that Liu Mougui has returned, Liu Mougui also needs to return 135000,<> yuan for the loss of mineral resources.
At the same time, illegal mining has also damaged the ecological environment of the Yangtze River waters, harmed the public interest, and should bear the corresponding civil tort liability. The economic and social development of the Yangtze River basin should adhere to the principles of giving priority to ecology and green development, and jointly grasping large-scale protection and not engaging in large-scale development. Liu Mougui, the defendant in the attached civil public interest lawsuit, and the defendants in the other case, Liu, Xiong, He and Yang, should jointly bear the loss of ecological functions and the cost of ecological restoration caused by illegal mining, and be jointly and severally liable for compensation. The plaintiff's claim for compensation for the loss of the Yangtze River ecological service function and the cost of ecological restoration by the above-mentioned defendants in the attached civil public interest litigation is in accordance with the provisions of law and is supported. With regard to the plaintiff's request for the above-mentioned defendants to publicly apologize to the public in the Jiujiang municipal news media, it complies with the provisions of law and is supported.
Relevant Laws
1. Articles 28 and 93 of the Yangtze River Protection Law of the People's Republic of China
2. Article 25 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
3. Article 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
Guiding Case No. 213
Huang Mouhui, Chen and other 8 people illegally fished aquatic products
Civil public interest litigation cases attached to criminal cases
(Discussed and passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People's Court, released on October 2023, 10)
关键词 刑事/刑事附带民事公益诉讼/非法捕捞水产品/生态环境修复/从轻处罚/增殖放流
裁判要点
1.破坏环境资源刑事案件中，附带民事公益诉讼被告具有认罪认罚、主动修复受损生态环境等情节的，可以依法从轻处罚。
2.人民法院判决生态环境侵权人采取增殖放流方式恢复水生生物资源、修复水域生态环境的，应当遵循自然规律，遵守水生生物增殖放流管理规定，根据专业修复意见合理确定放流水域、物种、规格、种群结构、时间、方式等，并可以由渔业行政主管部门协助监督执行。
基本案情
2020年9月，被告人黄某辉、陈某共谋后决定在长江流域重点水域禁捕区湖南省岳阳市东洞庭湖江豚自然保护区实验区和东洞庭湖鲤、鲫、黄颡国家级水产种质资源保护区捕鱼。两人先后邀请被告人李某忠、唐某崇、艾某云、丁某德、吴某峰(另案处理)、谢某兵以及丁某勇，在湖南省岳阳县东洞庭湖壕坝水域使用丝网、自制电网等工具捕鱼，其中黄某辉负责在岸上安排人员运送捕获的渔获物并予以销售，陈某、李某忠、唐某崇、艾某云、丁某德负责驾船下湖捕鱼，吴某峰、谢某兵、丁某勇负责使用三轮车运送捕获的渔获物。自2020年10月底至2021年4月13日，八被告人先后参与非法捕捞三、四十次，捕获渔获物一万余斤，非法获利十万元。
2021年8月20日，岳阳县人民检察院委托鉴定机构对八被告人非法捕捞水产品行为造成渔业生态资源、渔业资源造成的损害进行评估。鉴定机构于2021年10月21日作出《关于黄某辉等人在禁渔期非法捕捞导致的生态损失评估报告》，评估意见为：涉案非法捕捞行为中2000公斤为电捕渔获，3000公斤为网捕渔获。电捕造成鱼类损失约8000公斤，结合网捕共计11000公斤，间接减少5000000尾鱼种的补充；建议通过以补偿性鱼类放流的方式对破坏的鱼类资源进行生态修复。岳阳县价格认证中心认定，本案渔类资源损失价值为211 000元，建议向东洞庭湖水域放流草、鲤鱼等鱼苗的方式对渔业资源和水域生态环境进行修复。
岳阳县人民检察院于2021年7月30日依法履行公告程序，公告期内无法律规定的机关和有关组织反馈情况或提起诉讼，该院遂以被告人黄某辉、陈某、唐某崇、艾某云、丁某德、李某忠、谢某兵、丁某勇八人涉嫌犯非法捕捞水产品罪向岳阳县人民法院提起公诉，并以其行为破坏长江流域渔业生态资源，影响自然保护区内各类水生动物的种群繁衍，损害社会公共利益为由，向岳阳县人民法院提起刑事附带民事公益诉讼，请求判令上述八被告在市级新闻媒体上赔礼道歉；判令上述八被告按照生态损失评估报告提出的生态修复建议确定的放流种类、规格和数量、以及物价鉴定意见，在各自参与非法捕捞渔获物范围内共同购置相应价值的成鱼和苗种，在洞庭湖水域进行放流，修复渔业资源与环境。被告逾期不履行生态修复义务时，应按照放流种类和数量对应的鱼类市场价格连带承担相应渔业资源和生态修复费用211000元；判令上述被告连带承担本案的生态评估费用3000元。
被告人黄某辉、陈某、唐某崇、艾某云、丁某德、李某忠、谢某兵、丁某勇对公诉机关指控的罪名及犯罪事实均无异议，自愿认罪；同时对刑事附带民事公益诉讼起诉人提出的诉讼请求和事实理由予以认可，并对向东洞庭湖投放规定品种内价值211000元成鱼或鱼苗的方式对渔业资源和水域生态环境进行修复的建议亦无异议，表示愿意承担修复生态环境的责任。
裁判结果
在案件审理过程中，岳阳县人民法院组织附带民事公益诉讼起诉人和附带民事公益诉讼被告人黄某辉、陈某、唐某崇、艾某云、丁某德、李某忠、谢某兵、丁某勇调解，双方自愿达成了如下协议：1.由被告人黄某辉、陈某、唐某崇、艾某云、丁某德、李某忠、谢某兵、丁某勇按照生态损失评估报告提出的生态修复建议确定的放流种类、规格和数量以及物价鉴定意见，在各自参与非法捕捞渔获物范围内共同购置符合增殖放流规定的成鱼或鱼苗(具体鱼种以渔政管理部门要求的标准为准)，在洞庭湖水域进行放流，修复渔业资源与环境；2.由八被告人共同承担本案的生态评估费用3000元，直接缴纳给湖南省岳阳县人民检察院；3.八被告人在市级新闻媒体上赔礼道歉。
调解达成后，湖南省岳阳县人民法院将调解协议内容依法公告，社会公众未提出异议，30日公告期满后，湖南省岳阳县人民法院经审查认为调解协议的内容不违反社会公共利益，出具了(2021)湘0621刑初244号刑事附带民事调解书，将调解书送达给八被告人及岳阳县人民检察院，并向社会公开。2021年12月21日，在岳阳县东洞庭湖渔政监察执法局监督执行下，根据专业评估意见，被告人李某忠、谢某兵、丁某勇及其他被告人家属在东洞庭湖鹿角码头投放3-5厘米鱼苗446万尾，其中鲢鱼150万尾、鳙鱼150万尾、草鱼100万尾、青鱼46万尾，符合增殖放流的规定。
刑事附带民事调解书执行完毕后，岳阳县人民法院于2022年1月13日以(2021)湘0621刑初244号刑事附带民事判决，认定被告人黄某辉犯非法捕捞水产品罪，判处有期徒刑一年一个月；被告人陈某犯非法捕捞水产品罪，判处有期徒刑一年一个月；被告人唐某崇犯非法捕捞水产品罪，判处有期徒刑一年；被告人艾某云犯非法捕捞水产品罪，判处有期徒刑十一个月；被告人丁某德犯非法捕捞水产品罪，判处有期徒刑九个月；被告人李某忠犯非法捕捞水产品罪，判处拘役三个月，缓刑四个月；被告人谢某兵犯非法捕捞水产品罪，判处拘役三个月，缓刑四个月；被告人丁某勇犯非法捕捞水产品罪，判处拘役三个月，缓刑四个月；对被告人黄某辉、陈某、唐某崇、艾某云、丁某德、李某忠、谢某兵、丁某勇的非法获利十万元予以追缴，上缴国库，等等。
裁判理由
法院生效刑事附带民事调解书认为，被告人黄某辉、陈某、唐某崇、艾某云、丁某德、李某忠、谢某兵、丁某勇非法捕捞水产品的行为破坏了生态环境，损害了社会公共利益，应当承担赔偿责任。附带民事公益诉讼起诉人和附带民事公益诉讼被告人黄某辉、陈某、唐某崇、艾某云、丁某德、李某忠、谢某兵、丁某勇达成的调解协议不违反社会公共利益，人民法院予以确认并出具调解书。
法院生效刑事附带民事判决认为，被告人黄某辉、陈某、唐某崇、艾某云、丁某德、李某忠、谢某兵、丁某勇为谋取非法利益，在禁捕期，使用禁用工具、方法捕捞水产品，情节严重，触犯了《中华人民共和国刑法》第三百四十条之规定，犯罪事实清楚，证据确实、充分，应当分别以非法捕捞水产品罪追究其刑事责任。
在非法捕捞水产品罪的共同犯罪中，被告人黄某辉、陈某、唐某崇、艾某云、丁某德、李某忠起主要作用，系主犯，谢某兵、丁某勇起次要作用，系从犯，应当从轻处罚。八被告人如实供述犯罪事实，属于坦白，可从轻处罚；八被告人自愿认罪认罚，依法从宽处理；八被告人按照法院生效调解书内容积极主动购置成鱼或鱼苗在洞庭湖水域放流，主动履行修复渔业资源和生态的责任，可酌情从轻处罚。被告人李某忠、谢某兵、丁某勇犯罪情节较轻，且有悔罪表现，结合司法行政部门社区矫正调查评估报告意见，被告人李某忠、谢某兵、丁某勇没有再犯罪的危险，判处缓刑对居住的社区没有重大不良影响，依法可以宣告缓刑。公诉机关针对八被告人参与网捕、电捕和运输的次数，结合捕捞数量及参与度，分别提出的量刑建议恰当，法院依法予以采信。八被告人的非法捕捞行为破坏生态环境，损害社会公共利益，应当承担相应的民事责任，刑事附带民事公益诉讼起诉人的诉讼请求，符合法律规定，依法予以支持，对在诉讼过程中就刑事附带民事达成调解已依法予以确认。
相关法条
1.《中华人民共和国长江保护法》第53条、第93条
2.《中华人民共和国刑法》第340条
3.《中华人民共和国民法典》第1234条
4.《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于检察公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第20条
指导性案例214号
上海某某港实业有限公司破产清算转破产重整案
(最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2023年10月20日发布)
关键词 民事/申请破产清算/申请破产重整/污染治理/共益债务
裁判要点
1.人民法院审理涉流域港口码头经营企业破产重整案件，应当将环境污染治理作为实现重整价值的重要考量因素，及时消除影响码头经营许可资质存续的环境污染状态。
2.港口码头经营企业对相关基础设施建设、维护缺失造成环境污染，不及时治理将影响其破产重整价值的，应当由管理人依法进行治理。管理人请求将相关环境治理费用作为共益债务由债务人财产随时清偿的，人民法院依法应予支持。
基本案情
上海某某港实业有限公司(以下简称上海某港公司)于1993年9月设立，主营业务为码头租赁及仓储、装卸服务等。所处位置毗邻长江口，东与上海市外高桥港区、保税区相接，西临黄浦江。2019年11月，经债权人申请，上海市第三中级人民法院裁定受理上海某港公司破产清算案。经管理人调查发现，码头承租方经营管理混乱、设施设备陈旧老化，存在重大环境污染隐患。审理期间，环保、交管部门联合下达整改通知，要求对码头污水及扬尘处理设施进行限期整改，否则上海某港公司名下营运许可资质将被吊销。
上海某港公司名下拥有岸线使用许可证、港口经营许可证等无形资产，并拥有150米岸线长度，码头前沿控制线水深2≤水深＜5米，年货物吞吐量约200万吨，为保住上海某港公司营运价值，维护全体债权人利益，法院依申请裁定转入重整程序。
在法院指导下，管理人一方面与环保、交管部门紧急沟通协调，了解具体环保整改要求，另一方面迅速委托第三方进行施工整改，对污水沉砂池、水沟、地坪等设施设备进行施工扩建，确保地面雨水、喷洒水等统一汇集至污水沉砂池，经沉降处理后循环用于港内喷洒，大幅提高港口污水回用率，有效避免污水直排入江。另外加装围墙、增加砂石料围挡遮盖及装车喷水装置，有效管控码头扬尘，防止周边区域大气污染物超标。在接管财产难以支付相关施工、审价费用情况下，由管理人协调第三方先行垫付587068元，待重整资金到位后依据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国企业破产法〉若干问题的规定(三)》第二条的规定，按共益债务予以清偿，部分费用以租金抵扣方式协调租户随时整治并支付。
同时，依据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国企业破产法〉若干问题的规定(三)》第十五条第一款的规定，在债权人会议中以专项议案方式充分披露码头经营中的环境问题，说明修复整治费用及其处理方式，并经债权人会议表决同意。以有效地解决环保整改费用不足问题，提高了环境整治效率，确保码头绿色环保运营。在招募投资人过程中，除关注投资人本身资金实力与企业背景外，还关注投资人在码头绿色经营上的意愿和能力。经两轮市场化公开招募，引入投资人投入资金8700余万元，并着重将码头后续环保经营方案纳入重整计划草案。重整后企业将从设施设备改造升级、码头规范智能管理及环保绿色经营三个维度提升码头经营能力，做好外高桥保税区、港区配套服务。经债权人会议表决，出资人组在穷尽送达方式并公告后仍逾期未表决，担保债权组、税务债权组及普通债权组均表决通过了重整计划草案。管理人请求法院裁定批准上海某港公司重整计划草案。
裁判结果
上海市第三中级人民法院于2022年8月10日作出(2019)沪03破320号之六民事裁定：一、批准修订后的《上海某某港实业有限公司重整计划(草案)》；二、终止上海某港公司重整程序。重整计划执行过程中，在法院、管理人协助下，企业顺利解决营业执照到期及港口经营许可证超期问题。
裁判理由
法院生效裁判认为，对重整计划草案的审查批准，要尊重债权人会议意思自治和坚持合法性审查原则，同时也要考虑其能否在利益平衡基础上实现社会价值最大化。本案中，普通债权组清偿率较模拟清算下零清偿有了提高，在上海某港公司已严重资不抵债情况下，重整计划对出资人组权益调整为零的方案公平合理，草案中的经营方案具有可行性，可有效地延续上海某港公司的经营价值，有助于恢复上海某港公司的经营能力。破产管理人的申请，符合法律规定，并有利于实现企业可持续发展和生态环境保护的双重效果，应予准许。人民法院应充分发挥破产审判职能，将绿色发展理念融入重整司法全过程，从环境问题的修复治理、费用安排、重整计划的制定及执行等方面探索建立灵活高效的工作机制，使重整成为助推困境企业绿色低碳转型的有效路径。具体如下：
(一)关于重整企业环境污染治理责任及费用性质。依据《中华人民共和国环境保护法》《中华人民共和国港口法》等相关法律规定，以及“谁污染，谁治理”的原则，企业的环境污染治理责任应延续至其破产受理后。港口码头重整企业对相关基础设施的建设、维护缺失造成环境污染的，应由其作为环境治理责任主体进行整治。管理人作为破产事务的执行者，应负责实施具体的整治行为。该行为使得债务人企业经营资质得以保留，经营价值得以维系，提升了全体债权人的清偿利益。因整治所产生的费用，系为全体债权人利益而产生的费用，管理人请求按照《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国企业破产法〉若干问题的规定(三)》第二条的规定认定为共益债务的，人民法院应予支持。
(二)关于重整期间环境污染治理路径。本案所涉码头污染主要集中于水体、大气污染两方面，在法院指导下，管理人依法协同推进环境污染治理与重整程序：一是府院协调。由法院、管理人走访属地街镇、环境监管部门，充分了解所涉码头岸线环保责任要求及后续规划前景。经沟通协调后，相关部门延长整改期限，为环境污染整治争取了时间。二是先行治理。整改通知下达时，管理人未能接管到应收租金及其他资金。为在短时间内完成各项环境污染治理措施，保住企业经营资质，由管理人沟通码头承租企业先行委托第三方专业机构对标整改。通过对污水沉砂池及附属设施的扩建完善，解决雨水及场地污水未经处理渗漏进入环境水体现象，并提高污水回用率；通过加装降尘降噪设备，降低大气粉尘污染，确保空气质量达标，提升长江口岸流域生态环境质量。三是费用落实。主要费用由承租企业先行垫付，待重整资金到位后以共益债务清偿，解决整治资金难问题。四是信息披露。充分尊重债权人知情权、参与权、监督权，依据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国企业破产法〉若干问题的规定(三)》第十五条第一款规定，将环境污染整治事项作为重大财产处分行为进行专项表决，并在重整计划草案中披露环境污染治理经过及费用承担，争取债权人支持配合重整工作。
(三)关于环境污染治理与重整价值维护的关系。本案环境污染治理与企业重整价值密切相关，是决定企业能否实现其重整价值的关键因素。一旦企业违反相关环境污染防治法律法规，面临被剥夺行政许可资质的处罚时，将导致其重整价值丧失，故在港口码头企业破产重整案件审理过程中，应注重将环境污染治理和企业重整价值维护有机结合，及时消除影响码头经营许可资质存续的环境污染状态，将环境污染治理作为实现重整价值的重要考量因素。
(四)关于重整计划的制定、批准及执行。制定重整计划时，应体现绿色发展原则，引导投资人将环保经营方案和环保承诺事项写入计划，注重企业未来能否践行环境责任并促进经济、社会和环境协调发展。对重整计划草案进行审查批准时，应综合考虑企业清算价值、程序合法性等法律因素，以及企业可持续发展、生态环境保护等社会因素。重整计划执行中，应协调解决企业继续经营障碍。通过探索破产审判与生态环境司法保护协同推进的新机制，实现长江流域减污降碳源头治理和企业绿色低碳转型，促进生态环境保护、企业重生、债权人利益最大化的有机统一。
相关法条
1.《中华人民共和国长江保护法》第73条
2.《中华人民共和国企业破产法》第42条、第43条
指导性案例215号
昆明闽某纸业有限责任公司等污染环境
刑事附带民事公益诉讼案
(最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2023年10月20日发布)
关键词 刑事/刑事附带民事公益诉讼/环境污染/单位犯罪/环境侵权债务/公司法人人格否认/股东连带责任
裁判要点
公司股东滥用公司法人独立地位、股东有限责任，导致公司不能履行其应当承担的生态环境损害修复、赔偿义务，国家规定的机关或者法律规定的组织请求股东对此依照《中华人民共和国公司法》第二十条的规定承担连带责任的，人民法院依法应当予以支持。
基本案情
被告单位昆明闽某纸业有限公司(以下简称闽某公司)于2005年11月16日成立，公司注册资本100万元。黄某海持股80%，黄某芬持股10%，黄某龙持股10%。李某城系闽某公司后勤厂长。闽某公司自成立起即在长江流域金沙江支流螳螂川河道一侧埋设暗管，接至公司生产车间的排污管道，用于排放生产废水。经鉴定，闽某公司偷排废水期间，螳螂川河道内水质指标超基线水平13.0倍-239.1倍，上述行为对螳螂川地表水环境造成污染，共计减少废水污染治理设施运行支出3009662元，以虚拟治理成本法计算，造成环境污染损害数额为10815021元，并对螳螂川河道下游金沙江生态流域功能造成一定影响。
闽某公司生产经营活动造成生态环境损害的同时，其股东黄某海、黄某芬、黄某龙还存在如下行为：1.股东个人银行卡收公司应收资金共计124642613.1元，不作财务记载。2.将属于公司财产的9套房产(市值8920611元)记载于股东及股东配偶名下，由股东无偿占有。3.公司账簿与股东账簿不分，公司财产与股东财产、股东自身收益与公司盈利难以区分。闽某公司自案发后已全面停产，对公账户可用余额仅为18261.05元。
云南省昆明市西山区人民检察院于2021年4月12日公告了本案相关情况，公告期内未有法律规定的机关和有关组织提起民事公益诉讼。昆明市西山区人民检察院遂就上述行为对闽某公司、黄某海、李某城等提起公诉，并对该公司及其股东黄某海、黄某芬、黄某龙等人提起刑事附带民事公益诉讼，请求否认闽某公司独立地位，由股东黄某海、黄某芬、黄某龙对闽某公司生态环境损害赔偿承担连带责任。
裁判结果
云南省昆明市西山区人民法院于2022年6月30日以(2021)云0112刑初752号刑事附带民事公益诉讼判决，认定被告单位昆明闽某纸业有限公司犯污染环境罪，判处罚金人民币2000000元；被告人黄某海犯污染环境罪，判处有期徒刑三年六个月，并处罚金人民币500000元；被告人李某城犯污染环境罪，判处有期徒刑三年六个月，并处罚金人民币500000元；被告单位昆明闽某纸业有限公司在判决生效后十日内承担生态环境损害赔偿人民币10815021元，以上费用付至昆明市环境公益诉讼救济专项资金账户用于生态环境修复；附带民事公益诉讼被告昆明闽某纸业有限公司在判决生效后十日内支付昆明市西山区人民检察院鉴定检测费用合计人民币129500元。附带民事公益诉讼被告人黄某海、黄某芬、黄某龙对被告昆明闽某纸业有限公司负担的生态环境损害赔偿和鉴定检测费用承担连带责任。
宣判后，没有上诉、抗诉，一审判决已发生法律效力。案件进入执行程序，目前可供执行财产价值已覆盖执行标的。
裁判理由
The effective judgment of the court held that in the process of production and operation, enterprises should undertake the social responsibility of rational use of resources, take measures to prevent and control pollution, and fulfill the social responsibility of protecting the environment. The defendant company, a certain company in Fujian, ignored the social responsibility of corporate environmental protection, violated national laws and regulations, and failed to effectively treat production wastewater and discharge it directly through hidden pipes without a pollutant discharge permit, seriously polluting the environment, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10815021 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, constituting the crime of polluting the environment. Defendants Huang Mouhai and Li Moucheng, as the directly responsible managers and directly responsible personnel of the defendant unit Min XX Company, played an equivalent role in the unit's crime, and should also be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of polluting the environment. A company in Fujian discharged production wastewater directly into the river through a hidden pipe without authorization, causing ecological and environmental damage of up to <> yuan, and also had a certain impact on the function of the ecological basin of the downstream Jinsha River, and its behavior constituted serious damage to the public interest of the environment, and it was not only necessary to bear criminal liability in accordance with the law, but also to bear civil liability for compensation for ecological and environmental damage.
While pursuing economic benefits, the defendant in the attached civil public interest lawsuit, a company in Fujian, ignored its obligations to environmental protection, causing the company's production and business activities to cause serious damage to the public interest in the environment.
Since the establishment of a company in Min has had a large number of frequent capital exchanges with shareholders Huang Mouhai, Huang Moufen, and Huang Moulong, and all three of them have taken possession of the company's property without compensation, and the company has constituted a high degree of personality confusion with the company in Fujian, it can be determined that it is an act of abuse of the independent status of the company's legal person and the limited liability of shareholders as provided for in paragraph 10944521 of Article 1000000 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China. At present, the total environmental infringement debts borne by a company in Fujian are 18261 yuan, which is much higher than the registered capital of a company in Fujian of 05,<>,<> yuan, and the company in Fujian has completely ceased production since the incident, and the available balance of the corporate account is only <>,<>.<> yuan. The above facts show that the high degree of personality confusion between Huang Mouhai, Huang Moufen, Huang Moulong and Min Company has caused Min Company to lose its ability to pay off its environmental tort debts, and it is difficult for Min Company to perform its obligation to compensate for ecological and environmental damages, which meets the requirements for shareholders to bear joint and several liability as stipulated in Article <>, Paragraph <> of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, and Huang Mouhai, Huang Moufen, and Huang Moulong should be jointly and severally liable for the environmental tort debts of Min Company.
Relevant Laws
1. Article 93 of the Yangtze River Protection Law of the People's Republic of China
2. Articles 83 and 1235 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
3. Article 20 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China
Guiding Case No. 216
Suining County People's Procuratorate v. Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau
Case of non-performance of environmental protection supervision duties
(Discussed and passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People's Court, released on October 2023, 10)
Key words: administrative/administrative public interest litigation/environmental protection supervision duties/non-performance/disposal
Referee Points
If hazardous wastes pollute the environment and the polluters cannot dispose of them, the competent department of ecology and environment where the hazardous wastes are located shall perform the statutory duties of organizing the disposal on their behalf, and the disposal costs shall be borne by the polluters in accordance with law. Where the competent department of ecology and environment makes a defense of non-performance of responsibility on the grounds that the source or unit generating the hazardous waste is not within its jurisdiction, the people's court will not support it.
Basic facts of the case
In September and October 2017, Feng Moukang and others entrusted others to transport the hazardous waste ship cleaning sludge illegally purchased from Zhoushan Jiada Cabin Clearance Co., Ltd. and others to a brick and tile factory in Chenji Village, Lanshan Town, Suining County, Jiangsu Province, for illegal dumping. After the incident, the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau transferred more than 9 tons of oil sludge and oil sludge pollutants to a parking lot. In July 10, the Xuzhou Railway Transport Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Xuzhou Railway Transport Court for the case of the defendant Feng Moukang and others committing the crime of polluting the environment, and filed a civil public interest lawsuit attached to the criminal case in November of the same year. The Xuzhou Railway Transport Court found that the oil sludge involved in the case had been stored in an irregular manner for a long time, and in order to avoid secondary pollution, it requested the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau to dispose of the oil sludge involved in the case in a timely manner. On May 130, 2018, the Suining County People's Procuratorate issued a procuratorial suggestion to the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau, requiring it to perform its environmental protection supervision duties in accordance with the law, standardize the storage of the oil sludge involved in the case in accordance with the law, and promptly transfer it to a unit with hazardous waste disposal qualifications for disposal in accordance with the law. On July 7, 11, the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau replied, arguing that the oil sludge generating unit involved in the case was not in its jurisdiction, and it did not have the statutory duty to dispose of it on its behalf, and that the oil sludge involved in the case should be disposed of by the environmental protection department where the waste production unit is located.
On July 2019, 7, the Suining County People's Procuratorate filed an administrative public interest lawsuit on the grounds that the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau did not perform its environmental protection supervision duties, requesting that the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau's failure to perform its regulatory duties on the storage of the hazardous waste involved in the case be unlawful, and ordering it to transfer the hazardous waste involved in the case to a unit with hazardous waste disposal qualifications for disposal as soon as possible for disposal in accordance with the law. During the trial of the case, the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau handed over the oil sludge and its pollutants to a qualified unit for disposal in accordance with the law in October 19. After review, the Suining County People's Procuratorate found that the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau had performed its duty to dispose of the hazardous waste involved in the case, so it applied to change the original litigation request to confirm that the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau's failure to perform its regulatory duties in the storage of the hazardous waste involved in the case was unlawful.
Adjudication Results
On November 2019, 11, the Xuzhou Railway Transport Court rendered the (15) Su 2019 Xingchu No. 8601 Administrative Judgment: confirming that the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau's failure to fully and timely perform its administrative supervision duties of environmental protection for the storage of hazardous waste involved in the case was unlawful. After the judgment was pronounced, neither party appealed, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
Reasons for the Adjudication
The effective judgment of the court held that:
2016. The Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau has statutory supervision and management responsibilities for the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes involved in the case. Paragraph <> of Article <> of the Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the competent department of environmental protection of the local people's government at or above the county level shall implement unified supervision and management of environmental protection work in its administrative region; Paragraph <> of Article <> of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Waste (amended in <>) stipulates that the competent department of environmental protection of the people's government at or above the county level shall implement unified supervision and management of the prevention and control of environmental pollution by solid waste within its administrative area; Article <>, Paragraph <>, Article <> and Article <> of the Law all provide specific provisions on the regulatory responsibilities of the competent department of environmental protection for the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes.
The hazardous waste involved in the case is within the administrative jurisdiction of the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau, so it has the statutory duty to store the hazardous waste in accordance with the law and dispose of it in a timely manner. Hazardous wastes generally have corrosive, toxic, infectious and other harmful characteristics, which pose a great threat to the ecological environment and the safety of people's lives and property, and improper storage and disposal will cause immeasurable harmful consequences. Article 2016 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Waste (amended in <>) stipulates that if a unit that produces hazardous waste fails to dispose of hazardous waste within the time limit or the disposal of hazardous waste does not comply with relevant national regulations, the unit designated by the administrative department of environmental protection shall dispose of it in accordance with the relevant national regulations, the purpose is to eliminate the risk of hazardous waste pollution in a timely manner and prevent new damage caused by the spread of pollution, so as to effectively protect the ecological environment and the people's lives, health and safety. In this case, Feng Moukang and others were taken compulsory measures by the public security organs on suspicion of criminal offenses, and objectively did not have the actual conditions for disposing of the hazardous wastes involved in the case, and the competent department of ecology and environment where the hazardous wastes were located should perform their territorial environmental protection supervision duties and promptly organize the disposal of the hazardous wastes involved in the case, and the regulatory duties should not be exempted because the source and production unit of the hazardous wastes are not in their administrative jurisdiction.
2. The Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau failed to perform its environmental protection supervision duties involved in the case in accordance with law. First, the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau, knowing that the oil sludge involved in the case was a toxic and flammable hazardous waste that needed to be stored in accordance with the law and disposed of in a timely manner, failed to find a place that met the requirements for standardized storage of the oil sludge involved in the case in accordance with the law; The sludge involved in the case did not take any pollution prevention and control measures such as loss prevention and leakage prevention during the storage process; The packaging and storage places of the oil sludge involved in the case were also not set up with relevant hazardous waste identification and warning signs in accordance with the law; The oil sludge involved in the case was not effectively managed and maintained during the storage period, and the oil sludge was damaged and the sludge flowed and leaked to cause secondary pollution, and the emergency treatment measures for pollution prevention and control were not taken in a timely manner, all of which violated the relevant provisions of the Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China and the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Waste, and there was an obvious lack of administrative supervision. Second, the defendant, as the administrative authority in charge of environmental protection, clearly knew the characteristics of the hazardous waste involved in the case and the hazards of secondary pollution, and should promptly and properly dispose of the hazardous waste involved in the case, do a good job of pollution risk management and control, and prevent the public interest from being infringed. However, he did not actively perform his duties in accordance with the law, and after the sludge involved in the case dripped, flowed, or leaked, which had caused new environmental pollution consequences, and after the adjudication organ repeatedly warned of the risk and the procuratorate issued a procuratorial suggestion, he still did not standardize the storage of the oil sludge involved in the case and promptly organize the disposal on his behalf, allowing the consequences of pollution to continue to expand, resulting in a long-term infringement of the public interest, and it should be confirmed that his failure to perform his statutory duties was unlawful. During the litigation, the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau performed its duty to dispose of the oil sludge involved in the case, the Suining County People's Procuratorate applied to withdraw the relevant claims involving the disposal of hazardous waste, and the people's court confirmed that the Suining County Environmental Protection Bureau's previous non-performance of duties was illegal in accordance with the law.
Relevant Laws
1. Article 10 of the Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China
2. Articles 2016 and 10 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Waste (amended in 55).
3. Article 2020, Paragraph 9 and Article 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Waste (amended in 113).
Source: Information Bureau of the Supreme People's Court