| China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation v. Ningxia Ruitai Science and Technology Company (retrial case of dispute over liability for environmental pollution) | | 中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会与宁夏瑞泰科技股份有限公司环境污染责任纠纷申请再审案 |
| The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China | | 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 |
| Civil Ruling | | 民事裁定书 |
| (2016) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai No.47 | | (2016)最高法民再47号 |
| Retrial Applicant (plaintiff of the first instance, appellant of the second instance): China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation. Domicile：No.×, Xigexinli, Yongdingmenwai, Dongcheng District, Beijing | | 再审申请人（一审起诉人、二审上诉人）：中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会。 |
| Legal Representative: Hu Deping, Chairman of the Foundation | | 法定代表人：胡德平，该基金会理事长。 |
| Attorney: Wang Haijun, lawyer, Beijing DHH Law Firm | | 委托代理人：王海军，北京德和衡律师事务所律师。 |
| Attorney: Wang Xiao, lawyer, Beijing DHH Law Firm | | 委托代理人：王晓，北京德和衡律师事务所律师。 |
| Unsatisfied with the civil ruling (2015) Ning Min Gong Li Zhong Zi No.6 by the High People's Court of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region for the environmental pollution lawsuit it brought against Ningxia Ruitai Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred as “Ruitai”), China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (hereinafter referred as the “Foundation”), the Retrial Applicant, applied to this Court for a retrial. After ordering to bring up the present case for trial, this Court formed a panel in accordance with law, and tried the present case.The trial has now been completed. | | 再审申请人中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会（以下简称绿发会）因起诉宁夏瑞泰科技股份有限公司（以下简称瑞泰公司）环境污染公益诉讼一案，不服宁夏回族自治区高级人民法院（2015）宁民公立终字第6号民事裁定，向本院申请再审。本院裁定提审本案后，依法组成合议庭进行了审理，现已审理终结。 |
| The Foundation complained to the Intermediate People's Court of the Zhongwei City, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region: Ruitai unlawfully made direct discharge, in the process of production, of waste water above standards into the evaporation pond, caused serious pollution of the Tengger Desert, and failed to complete its rectification by the time this lawsuit was brought. It was requested that Ruitai be ordered to：1) Terminate its conduct of illegal pollution of environment； 2)Eliminate the danger of pollution caused to the environment；3) estore the ecology and environment or establish an earmarked fund for desert rehabilitation and engage a qualified third party to conduct the rehabilitation；4) ave the court organize the plaintiff, technical experts, legal experts, deputies to the people's congress and representatives of the people's political consultative conference to inspect and accept the matters requested under item 2) and 3)；5) ompensate for the ecological function lost before the environment is rehabilitated；6) Make public apology on media of nationwide distribution；7) ear the evaluation fees, travel expenses, attorney fees and other reasonable costs expended by the Foundation; and 8) ear the litigation costs of the present case. | | 绿发会向宁夏回族自治区中卫市中级人民法院起诉称：瑞泰公司在生产过程中违规将超标废水直接排入蒸发池，造成腾格里沙漠严重污染，截至起诉时仍然没有整改完毕。请求判令瑞泰公司：（一）停止非法污染环境行为；（二）对造成环境污染的危险予以消除；（三）恢复生态环境或者成立沙漠环境修复专项基金并委托具有资质的第三方进行修复；（四）针对第二项和第三项诉讼请求，由法院组织原告、技术专家、法律专家、人大代表、政协委员共同验收；（五）赔偿环境修复前生态功能损失；（六）在全国性媒体上公开赔礼道歉；（七）承担绿发会支出的鉴定费、差旅费、律师费等合理费用；（八）承担本案诉讼费用。 |
| The court of the first instance believed that: The Foundation cannot be deemed as a social organization that “specifically engages in public-interest activities of environmental protection”as set forth in Article 58 of the Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred as “EPL”) because although the Foundation's purpose and business scope are to safeguard the public interest of the society, its charter fails to task it to “engage in public-interest activities of environmental protection” as set forth in Article 4 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law to the Trial of Environmental Civil Public-Interest Litigation Cases (hereinafter referred as the “EPIL Interpretation”), and the business scope as defined in the Foundation's registration certificate fails to include the business of environmental protection. The court of the first instance refused to entertain the lawsuit brought by the Foundation in accordance with Article 58 of EPL, Article 4 of the EPIL Interpretation and Article 123 of the Civil Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred as “CPL”). | | 一审法院认为：绿发会的宗旨与业务范围虽然是维护社会公共利益，但其章程中并未确定该基金会同时具备《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》（以下简称环境公益诉讼司法解释）第四条规定的“从事环境保护公益活动”，且该基金会的登记证书确定的业务范围也没有从事环境保护的业务，故绿发会不能认定为《中华人民共和国环境保护法》（以下简称环境保护法）第五十八条规定的“专门从事环境保护公益活动”的社会组织。一审法院依照环境保护法第五十八条、环境公益诉讼司法解释第四条、《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（以下简称民事诉讼法）第一百二十三条的规定，裁定对绿发会的起诉不予受理。 |
| Unsatisfied with the order by the court of the first instance, the Foundation appealed to the High People's Court of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, and claimed that: the court of the first instance failed to correctly understand the concepts of “environment” and “environmental protection”, and therefore erred in concluding that the Foundation's purpose and business scope failed to include “engage in public-interest activities of environmental protection”. The appeal requested that: 1) The order of the first instance be set aside; and 2) the lawsuit brought by the Foundation be entertained in accordance with law. | | 绿发会不服一审裁定，向宁夏回族自治区高级人民法院提起上诉称：一审法院未能正确理解“环境”及“环境保护”的概念，从而错误得出绿发会宗旨和业务范围没有“从事环境保护公益活动”的结论。上诉请求：（一）撤销一审裁定；（二）依法受理绿发会的起诉。 |
| The court of the second instance believed that: The Foundation's appeal was inconsistent with the provisions in Article 58 of EPL, Article 4 and 5 of the EPIL Interpretation, and the grounds of appeal invalid. In accordance with Item 1 of Subclause 1 of Article 170, Article 171 and Article 175 of CPL, the court of the second instance rejected the Foundation's appeal and affirmed the order of the first instance. | | 二审法院认为：绿发会的上诉不符合环境保护法第五十八条和环境公益诉讼司法解释第四条、第五条的规定，上诉理由不能成立。二审法院依照民事诉讼法第一百七十条第一款第一项、第一百七十一条、第一百七十五条的规定，裁定驳回绿发会的上诉，维持一审裁定。 |
| Unsatisfied with the order of the second instance, the Foundation applied to this Court for retrial and claimed that: 1) The order of the second instance failed to contain the content required for civil orders and was inconducive to the effective implementation of the EPIL system, by finding the Foundation's grounds for appeal inconsistent with Article 58 of EPL and Article 4 and 5 of the EPIL Interpretation, without clearly stating the facts and grounds of the order or conducting legal analysis of the appellate opinions. 2) The order of the first instance failed to correctly understand the concepts of “environment' and “environmental protection” and erred in concluding that the Foundation's purpose and business scope did not include “engage in public-interest activities of environmental protection”. In the contrary, “Protecting biodiversity”, “the cause of green development”, “developing ecological civilization”, “harmony between the mankind and nature”, “beautiful home” and other expressions in the Foundation's charter all belong to the category of environmental protection. The order of the first instance found the Foundation not engaging in public-interest activities of environmental protection, on the sole ground that the wording of “public-interest activities of environmental protection” is absent. This is a mechanical understanding of statutory provisions, which shall be corrected. 3) The Foundation's actual engagement in public-interest activities of environmental protection has also corroborated its purpose and business scope of “public-interest activities of environmental protection” as prescribed in the Foundation's charter. Article 4 of the EPIL Interpretation eased the scrutiny standard of social organizations specifically engaging in public-interest activities of environmental protection” and embodied the judicial orientation to encourage social organizations to bring environmental civil public-interest litigations in accordance with law. Since its establishment, the Foundation had always been engaging in public- interest activities relating to environmental protection. The order of the second instance erred in understanding the above mentioned provisions of the EPIL Interpretation and applying the law. It was requested that: 1) the orders of the first and the second instance be set aside; and 2) the lawsuit brought by the Foundation be entertained in accordance with law. | | 绿发会不服二审裁定，向本院申请再审称：（一）二审裁定没有写明事实和理由，也没有对上诉意见进行法律分析，就认定绿发会上诉理由不符合环境保护法第五十八条和环境公益诉讼司法解释第四条、第五条的规定，不符合民事裁定应有的内容要求，不利于环境民事公益诉讼制度的有效实施。（二）一审裁定未能正确理解“环境”以及“环境保护”的概念，错误得出绿发会宗旨和业务范围没有“从事环境保护公益活动”的结论。绿发会章程中的“生物多样性保护”“绿色发展事业”“生态文明建设”“人与自然和谐”“美好家园”等表述均属于环境保护的范畴。一审裁定单纯以没有“环境保护公益活动”的文字表述为由，认定绿发会未从事环境保护公益活动，属于对法律条文的机械理解，应予纠正。（三）绿发会实际从事环境保护公益活动的情况，也印证了其章程所确定的“环境保护公益活动”的宗旨和业务范围。环境公益诉讼司法解释第四条放宽了对于社会组织专门从事环境保护公益活动的审查标准，体现了鼓励社会组织依法提起环境民事公益诉讼的司法导向。绿发会自成立以来，一直从事环境保护相关公益活动。二审裁定错误理解环境公益诉讼司法解释的上述规定，适用法律错误。请求：（一）撤销一审裁定和二审裁定；（二）依法受理绿发会的起诉。 |
| ．．．．．． | | ．．．．．． |
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
|
| | | |
| | | |