| Hongshun Paper Company on Water Pollution v. Xuzhou People's Procuratorate (appellate case regarding dispute over compensation liability for tort of environmental pollution) | | 徐州市鸿顺造纸有限公司与江苏省徐州市人民检察院环境污染侵权赔偿纠纷上诉案 |
| Jiangsu High People's Court | | 江苏省高级人民法院 |
| Civil Judgment | | 民事判决书 |
| (2016) Su Min Zhong No. 1357 | | (2016)苏民终1357号 |
| Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Xuzhou Hongshun Paper Co., Ltd. Address: Zhaozhuang Village, Liuxin Town, Tongshan District, Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province. | | 上诉人（原审被告）：徐州市鸿顺造纸有限公司。 |
| Legal representative: Shang Aiping, Manager of Xuzhou Hongshun Paper Co., Ltd. | | 法定代表人：尚爱平，徐州市鸿顺造纸有限公司经理。 |
| Entrusted agent: Zhou Xiaotian, staff of Xuzhou Hongshun Paper Co., Ltd. | | 委托诉讼代理人：周孝田，徐州市鸿顺造纸有限公司职员。 |
| Attorney: Meng Qiu, Jiangsu Huaihai Zhengda Law Firm. | | 委托诉讼代理人：孟秋，江苏淮海正大律师事务所律师。 |
| Appellee (××): People's Procuratorate of Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province. Address: No. 128, Xi'an South Road, Xuzhou City. | | 被上诉人（××）：江苏省徐州市人民检察院。 |
| Legal representative: Han Xiaoyun, Chief Procurator of the People's Procuratorate of Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province. | | 法定代表人：韩筱筠，江苏省徐州市人民检察院检察长。 |
| Unsatisfied with Xuzhou Intermediate People's Court's (2015) Civil Judgement on the environmental pollution damages dispute (Xu Huan Gong Min Chu Zi No.6) with the appellee Xuzhou Municipal People's Procuratorate, Jiangsu Province, the appellant Xuzhou Hongshun Paper Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hongshun) appealed to this court. A collegial panel was formed under the law after the case was filed on November 7, 2016. Since the parties involved did not submit new facts, evidence or reasons, the collegial panel held that there was no need for the court hearing. The case was not publicly heard in accordance with the Article 169 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Now the trial has been concluded. | | 上诉人徐州市鸿顺造纸有限公司（以下简称鸿顺公司）因与被上诉人江苏省徐州市人民检察院环境污染侵权赔偿纠纷一案，不服江苏省徐州市中级人民法院(2015)徐环公民初字第6号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。本院于2016年11月7日立案后，依法组成合议庭，因各方当事人没有提出新的事实、证据或者理由，合议庭认为不需要开庭审理，依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百六十九条第一款之规定，决定不开庭审理。本案现已审理终结。 |
| The appellant Hongshun Company requested that the first－instance judgement be rejected and the claim by the public prosecutor be dismissed or the payment for ecological restoration be reduced to CNY 45,000. | | 鸿顺公司上诉请求：撤销一审判决，驳回公益诉讼人起诉或改判赔偿生态修复费用4.5万元。 |
| The appellate grounds and defenses raised by the appellant Hongshun Company were： | | 事实和理由： |
| (1) The claim of the public prosecutor did not meet the conditions for acceptance and should be dismissed; the court of the first instance rendered a judgement irrelevant to the public prosecutor's claim and the trial procedure should be deemed illegal. The amount of tort damages claimed by the public prosecutor to Hongshun Company was three to five times the baseline of CNY 269,100, which was a round number. The claim was unclear and should be dismissed according to the law. The original judgment's decision on the payment for ecological restoration, a claim that the public prosecutor didn't file in the original trial, was irrelevant to the claim. Therefore, the trial procedure should be deemed illegal. | | （一）公益诉讼人的诉讼请求不符合受理条件，应当驳回起诉；原审法院超诉讼请求判决，审判程序违法。公益诉讼人关于判令鸿顺公司以26.91万元为基数的三倍至五倍承担赔偿责任的诉讼请求数额为约数，诉讼请求不明确，应当依法驳回起诉。公益诉讼人没有起诉请求赔偿生态环境修复费用，原审判决赔偿生态环境修复费用，属于超诉讼请求判决，审判程序违法。 |
| (2) Hongshun Company should not bear the cost of ecological restoration. Despite the fact that Hongshun Company illegally discharged the wastewater, the contents of the discharged wastes were mainly organics, lignin and cellulose and there were very few toxic and hazardous substances such as heavy metals. Since the water body could purify itself, the water quality of the Subei River was barely affected, hence the discharge of wastewater causing no ecological damages. | | （二）鸿顺公司不应当承担生态修复费用。鸿顺公司虽违法排放废水，但所排放废水的成分以有机物、木质素、纤维素为主，重金属等有毒有害物质极少，由于水体的自我净化，苏北堤河水质未受影响，排放废水行为未造成生态破坏。 |
| (3) The coefficient of 2.035 times used to decide the damages of environmental damages in the original judgment was too high. Hongshun Company reused waste paper to produce the corrugated paper. The wastewater generated during the manufacturing process was mainly from pulping, filtration, flotation and papermaking, different than that from de － inking or bleaching which had a much higher pollutant load. Therefore, the ecological restoration should be relatively easy in this case. Therefore, the court should have taken the coefficient 1.5 times within the range of 1.5 times－3 times for ecological damages compensation stipulated in the Virtual Disposal Cost Method to decide the environmental damages. | | （三）原审判决将2.035倍作为计算本案生态环境损害赔偿计算系数取值过高。鸿顺公司生产瓦楞纸采用全废纸造纸工艺，造纸废水主要为废纸的碎浆、筛选、浮选及抄纸过程中产生的废水。因无脱墨、漂白等工艺，与脱墨废纸浆生产工艺相比，排出的废水污染负荷少，生态修复容易。依据“虚拟治理成本法”环境损害数额赔偿倍数取值范围为1.5-3倍，本案应当按照1.5倍取值。 |
| (4) The court of first instance took 3 to 5 times the base of CNY 264,455 to calculate the cost for ecological restoration fee and loss of ecological service ， which lacked legal basis. The identification of losses of ecological service lacked factual basis. With the ability of self － purification as a result of the fluidity of water, the water quality of Subei River had already been recovered, thus no loss of the ecological function incurred. | | （四）原审判决以26.455万元为基数，以其三至五倍计算生态环境修复费用和服务功能损失缺乏法律依据。服务功能损失认定无事实依据。苏北堤河因水体流动及自我净化，水质早已自然恢复，无需恢复原状，也不存在服务功能损失。 |
| (5) In the original judgment, no deduction of the payment for restoration and service function losses was considered, though Hongshun Company had paid a fine of CNY 150,000 before. The Environmental Protection Bureau of Tongshan District had imposed a fine on Hongshun Company under the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act. The legislative purpose of the Act was to prevent and control water pollution and to protect and improve the environment. The fine paid by the Company should be used to improve the environment, which was consistent with the purpose the compensation claims in this case. The amount of the fine already paid by the company should be deducted from the compensation fee. | | （五）原审判决未将鸿顺公司已经缴纳的15万元罚款予以抵扣不当。铜山区环境保护局曾经依据水污染防治法对该公司处以罚款。水污染防治法的立法目的是防治水污染，保护和改善环境。该公司缴纳的罚款应当用于改善环境，与本案赔偿资金的使用目的一致。已经缴纳的罚款理应在赔偿金中予以抵扣。 |
| The appellee, Xuzhou Municipal People's Procuratorate, did not submit a written reply after receiving the appeal. | | 被上诉人徐州市人民检察院收到上诉状后未提交书面答辩意见。 |
| Xuzhou Municipal People's Procuratorate instituted an action to the court of first instance to request that Hongshun Company restore the environment of the Subei River to the original condition and compensate for the interim losses of ecological service function during the restoration; if Hongshun Company failed to restore the environment to the original condition, the procuratorate would requested an order that the company pay directly three to five times the base of CNY 269,100 in compensation under the Opinion of the Environmental Pollution Damage Advisory. Besides, the consulting fee of the expert advisor in this case, which was CNY 3,000 in total, should be borne by the Company. The action was instituted based on the grounds and facts as follows：(1) Hongshun Company released untreated wastewater into the river through a hidden outfall respectively on April 27, 2013, April 5－6, 2014, and February 24－25, 2015. 2，600 tons of wastewater were released without permission from April 5 to 6, 2014 and February 24 to 25, 2015. Hongshun company polluted the environment and should therefore pay for the ecological restoration and the loss of ecological service functions. (2) The company should bear the tort liability by paying for the restoration and ecological service function losses in the amount determined by the Virtual Disposal Cost Method. (3) The Company laid a hidden outfall to discharge untreated wastewater from industrial activities for three consecutive years with the volume increasing each year. It was reasonable to assume due to the dysfunction of the pollution prevention and control equipment between 2013 and 2015, volume of wastewater discharged should stand over 2, 600 tons. A cost of CNY 269,100 for restoring environment damaged by 2,600 tons of wastewater should be used as a base and should be multiplied by 3 to 5 to determine the ecological and environmental damages. | | 徐州市人民检察院向一审法院起诉请求：判令鸿顺公司将其污染损害的苏北堤河环境恢复原状，并赔偿生态环境受到损害至恢复原状期间的服务功能损失；如鸿顺公司无法恢复原状请求判令其以环境污染损害咨询意见所确定的人民币26.91万元为基准的三倍至五倍承担赔偿责任；承担本案专家辅助人咨询费用3000元。事实与理由：（一）鸿顺公司于2013年4月27日、2014年4月5日至6日、2015年2月24日至25日使用暗排口直接排放废水。仅2014年4月5日至6日和2015年2月24日至25日两次偷排废水即达2600吨，该公司排放废水污染环境，应当赔偿生态环境修复费用和服务功能损失。（二）该公司应当按照“虚拟治理成本法”所确定的数额承担侵权赔偿责任。（三）该公司连续三年私设暗管偷排生产废水，且每次都加大废水排放量，有理由推定在2013年至2015年期间鸿顺公司的防治污染设备未能有效运行，违法排放量远超2600吨。应当以排放2600吨废水所需生态环境修复费用26.91万元为基数，在该基数的三至五倍之间确定生态环境损害赔偿责任。 |
| Hongshun Company contended in the first instance that as a civil welfare enterprise dedicated to the recycling of the waste materials, Hongshun Company was willing to pay for theecological damages it had caused. However, it held that: (1) the sample taken from the Subei River showed that the pollutants discharged didn't exceed the limit too much, hence very limited influence on irrigation. With the capacity of the self－purification, the water quality of Subei River had reached the V－class quality standard, so the Company should not bear the responsibility for restoring it to original condition. (2) Hongshun Company agreed to determine the restoration fee in accordance with the “Virtual Disposal Cost Method” and also agreed that restoration expenses should be determined between 1.5 to 3 times the virtual disposal cost. Since the contents of the wastewater discharged by Hongshun's were mainly organic matter and there were very few toxic and hazardous substances such as heavy metals. The ecological damage it caused was limited and restoration was relatively easy. Therefore, the coefficient used to determine the ecological restoration cost should be 1.5. In addition, there was no analysis on the quality of the 600 tons of wastewater discharged by the Company in 2014. Considering that the customer's price was lower then, the calculation coefficient should be lower than that of the 2015. (3) The public prosecutor's request that Hongshun Company be liable for a cost of ecological restoration three to five times the base CNY 261,100 should be deemed groundless; the service function loss claimed by the public prosecutor was not supported by evidence and thus untruthful. (4) Hongshun Company had already paid a total of CNY 150,000 in two administrative penalties, which should be used for environmental treatment and be deducted from the amount of damages for ecological restoration. | | 鸿顺公司一审辩称，鸿顺公司系废旧物资再利用型民政福利企业，愿意对造成的生态环境损害进行赔偿，但认为：（一）苏北堤河取样监测结果表明排放的污染物超标程度不高，对灌溉影响不大。因环境自我净化，苏北堤河已经达到V类水质标准，无需承担恢复原状的责任。（二）鸿顺公司认可按照“虚拟治理成本法”确定本案生态环境修复费用，也同意在虚拟治理成本的1.5倍--3倍之间确定生态环境修复费用。鉴于鸿顺公司排放废水的污染物成分以有机物为主，重金属等有毒有害物质极少，生态环境受到的损害较小，恢复较为容易，应当以1.5倍作为计算系数确定生态环境修复费用。此外，该公司2014年排放的600吨废水，未对生产废水水质进行分析，考虑当时物价较低，计算系数应当低于2015年的计算系数。（三）公益诉讼人要求鸿顺公司以26.91万元为基数以其三至五倍确定生态环境修复费用的理由不能成立；公益诉讼人提出的服务功能损失并无确切证据证实，不应得到支持。（四）鸿顺公司已在两次行政处罚中共缴纳15万元罚款，该罚款应当用于环境治理，理应从生态环境赔偿数额中予以抵扣。 |
| The court of first instance held that： | | 一审法院认定事实： |
| On August 20, 2008, Xuzhou Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau issued the Reply on the Environmental Impact Report for the High-strength Corrugated Paper Technology Improvement with an Annual Production of 60,000 Tons Project of Hongshan Paper Mill in Tongshan County (Xu － Huan － Xiang [2008] No. 75 (hereinafter referred to as the Technology Improvement Project Report). In December 2014, Jiangsu Provincial Environmental Protection Department issued a pollutant discharge permit to Hongshun Company, requiring the Company to implement the discharge standard for “enterprises of the joint production of pulp and paper” as stipulated in the Table 2 of the Standard for the Discharge of Water Pollutants in Pulp and Paper Industry(GB3544－2008). The limit of discharged wastewater were 195,000 tons per year, and the wastewater can only be reused for recycling or irrigation and cannot be discharged into surface water. From 2013 to 2015, Hongshun's production project of 60,000 － ton of high － strength corrugated paper technical improvement had been running as planned. | | 2008年8月20日，徐州市环境保护局作出《关于对铜山县鸿顺造纸厂年产6万吨高强瓦楞原纸技改项目环境影响报告表的批复》（徐环项[2008]75号）（以下简称技改项目环评报告表）。2014年12月，江苏省环境保护厅给鸿顺公司颁发排放污染物许可证，要求该项目执行《纸浆造纸工业水污染物排放标准》（GB3544-2008）表2中“制浆和造纸联合生产企业”排放标准，废水排放总量限值为19.5万吨/年，废水只能用于回用或者灌溉，不能排放到地面水体。2013年至2015年间，鸿顺公司6万吨高强瓦楞纸技改项目正常生产。 |
| On April 27, 2013, the Liuxin Environmental Inspection Detachment of the Environmental Protection Bureau of Tongshan District, Xuzhou City, found that in the production project of 60,000－ton of high－strength corrugated paper technical improvement, Hongshun Company laid a hidden outfall to release untreated waste water and its sewage treatment equipment was dysfunctional. | | 2013年4月27日，徐州市铜山区环境保护局柳新环境监察中队发现鸿顺公司年产6万吨高强瓦楞纸项目存在私设暗管排放生产废水和污水处理设施不能正常运转等问题。 |
| From April 5th to 6th, 2014, Hongshun Companylaid a hidden outfall to release 600 tons of untreated waste water into the Subei River. On April 18, 2014, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Tongshan District of Xuzhou City issued the Tong Huan Ze Gai Zi 〔 2014〕 No. 21 Decision on Correcting Environmental Violations to order the Company to dismantle the hidden outfall immediately. On May 12, 2014, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Tongshan District of Xuzhou City issued the Tong Huan Fa Zi 〔2014〕 No. 25 Administrative Penalty Decision and imposed a fine of CNY 50,000 on Hongshun Company. On August 14, 2014, Hongshun Company paid the fine of CNY 50,000. | | 2014年4月5日至6日，鸿顺公司私设暗排管排放未经处理的生产废水600吨，废水汇入苏北堤河。2014年4月18日，徐州市铜山区环境保护局作出铜环责改字[2014]21号责令改正环境违法行为决定书，责令该公司立即拆除暗管。2014年5月12日，徐州市铜山区环境保护局向鸿顺公司发出铜环罚字[2014]25号行政处罚决定书，对鸿顺公司处以人民币5万元的罚款。2014年8月14日，鸿顺公司缴纳5万元罚款。 |
| From February 24 to 25,2015, Hongshun Company laid a temporary iron outfall 20 centimeters in diameter to discharge the untreated wastewater into the Subei River from the south of the Company's sewage treatment plant. There was a total of 2,000 tons of wastewater released. On February 25, 2015, the Environmental Monitoring Station of Tongshan District of Xuzhou City took samples from the wastewater and found that “the chemical oxygen demand (COD) was 1180 mg/L, ammonia nitrogen 28.2 mg/L, and total phosphorus 1.60 mg. /L”, which were 12.1 times, 2.5 times, and 1 time respectively higher than the limits set by the Standard for the Discharge of Water Pollutants in Pulp and Paper Industry (GB3544 － 2008). On March 12, 2015, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Tongshan District of Xuzhou City issued the Tong Huan Fa Zi〔2015〕 No. 6 Administrative Penalty Decision, imposing a fine of CNY 100,000 on Hongshun Company. On April 27, 2015, Hongshun Company paid a fine of CNY 100,000. | | 2015年2月24日至25日，鸿顺公司临时设置直径20厘米铁质排放管，将未经处理的生产废水经该公司污水处理厂南侧排入苏北堤河，排放量2000吨。徐州市铜山区环境监测站于2015年2月25日对该公司外排废水进行采水样监测，数据显示“化学需氧量为1180mg/L、氨氮为28.2mg/L、总磷为1.60mg/L”，分别超过《纸浆造纸工业水污染物排放标准》（GB3544-2008）12.1倍、2.5倍、1倍。2015年3月12日，徐州市铜山区环境保护局作出铜环罚字[2015]6号行政处罚决定书，对鸿顺公司处以人民币10万元的罚款。2015年4月27日，鸿顺公司缴纳罚款10万元。 |
| The Subei River enters the Bu Lao Section of the Beijing－Hangzhou Canal via Shun River. The Canal is one of the main rivers for irrigation and drainage. The public prosecutor paid an expert consultation fee of CNY 3,000 for evidence collection. | | 苏北堤河入顺堤河后进入京杭运河不牢河段，系流经区域的灌溉排涝主要河流之一。公益诉讼人为调查取证，支付专家咨询费用3000元。 |
| The court of first instance held that： | | 一审法院认为： |
| (1) Hongshun should bear the tort liability for restoration. Hongshun violated the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law of the People's Republic of China and other laws and regulations by illegally discharging wastewater in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The untreated wastewater in 2014 and 2015 was released into the Subei River, causing environmental pollution. Hongshun should bear the liabilities according to the law. Though the effluent discharged by Hongshun was gradually diluted, it could not be considered that it only caused very limited or no damages to the environment. As the river flows, the pollution spreads downstream. The improvement of the water quality at the discharging point couldn't serve as an indicator of the restoration of the regional water ecological environment and the ecological environment was still in dire need of restoration. Even though the water quality of the Subei River had reached the standard, alternative schemes were still needed to restore the regional ecological environment, a liability Hongshun should assume. Given that Hongshun explicitly stated it was beyond its capability to restore the environment or even propose a restoration scheme, according to Article 20 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Conduct of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigations (hereinafter referred to as SPC's EPIL Interpretation), Hongshun should bear the ecological restoration cost as an alternative to restoring the ecology and environment to the original condition. | | （一）鸿顺公司应当承担恢复原状的侵权责任。鸿顺公司违反《中华人民共和国水污染防治法》等法律规定，2013年、2014年、2015年三次违法排放废水，2014年、2015年排放的废水直接汇入苏北堤河，造成环境污染，应依法承担相应的法律责任。鸿顺公司外排废水经稀释后浓度逐步降低，不能以此认为未对环境造成损害或损害程度较小。因河水流动，污染源向下游扩散，倾倒处的水质的好转并不意味着地区水生态环境已修复，生态环境依然有修复的必要。即使现在苏北堤河水质已达标准，依然需要用替代修复方案对地区生态环境进行修复，鸿顺公司应当承担替代修复责任。鉴于鸿顺公司已明确表示没有能力将环境恢复原状亦不能提出修复方案，依据《最高人民法院关于审理环境民事公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第二十条规定，可直接确定鸿顺公司所应承担的生态环境修复费用来替代恢复原状的责任。 |
| (2) The technical experts from both the public prosecutor and Hongshun agreed that the ecological restoration cost of this case could be determined using Method of Virtual Disposal Costs in accordance with the Opinions on the Environmental Pollution Damage Assessment and Evaluation (China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development〔2011〕No.60) and the Recommended Methods for Environmental Damage Identification and Evaluation (Second Edition) (hereinafter referred to as the “Recommended Methods”); both parties agreed on the price of CNY 50 per ton for the treatment of wastewater in 2014 and 2015. Having had taken into account factors such as the content of pollutants and severity of ecological damage, the court decided to take the mean value of the coefficient suggested by the technical experts of both parties, which was 2.035 times. Since the production techniques and the gravity of environmental pollution caused by Hongshun Company in 2014 were not vastly different from those in 2015. Plus, Hongshun failed to prove that there was a substantial difference between the two discharges. Therefore, the approach applied to determine the value of damages of ecological environment caused by the discharge of 600 tons of wastewater in 2014 should be the same with that in 2015. In 2014 and 2015, Hongshun illegally discharged 2, 600 tons of wastewater, so the total ecological restoration cost should be 2600×50×2.035＝264550 (CNY) according to Method of Virtual Disposal Costs. | | （二）公益诉讼人和鸿顺公司双方的技术专家均认可本案生态环境修复费用可按照环保部《关于开展环境污染损害鉴定评估工作的若干意见》（环发[2011]60号）和《环境损害鉴定评估推荐方法》（第Ⅱ版）（以下简称“推荐办法”），采用“虚拟治理成本法”确定；均认可2014年及2015年两次违法排放的废水每吨治理单价为50元。综合考虑本次污染行为的污染物成分、被破坏的生态环境状况等因素，决定取双方申请的技术专家意见关于倍数取值的平均值，即2.035倍作为生态环境损害数额的倍数取值。由于2014年鸿顺公司违法排放生产废水时的生产工艺以及受污染环境情况与2015年基本相同，鸿顺公司也未能举证证明两次排污有实质区别，对2014年所排放的600吨生产废水的生态环境损害赔偿数额理应与2015年排放的生产废水以相同的方法予以计算。鸿顺公司2014年及2015年两次共计违法排放2600吨废水，按照“虚拟治理成本法”计算生态环境修复费用为2600×50×2.035＝264550（元）。 |
| ．．．．．． | | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | |
| | | |