目录

1．佛山市三英精细材料有限公司诉佛山市顺德区人民政府环保行政处罚案

2．动感酒吧诉武威市凉州区环境保护局环保行政命令案

3．海丽国际高尔夫球场有限公司诉国家海洋局环保行政处罚案

4．卢红等204人诉杭州市萧山区环境保护局环保行政许可案

5．君宁机械厂诉六安市金安区环境保护局环保行政处罚案

6．苏耀华诉广东省博罗县人民政府划定禁养区范围通告案

7．泉州弘盛石业有限公司诉晋江市环境保护局环保行政管理案

8．梦达驰汽车系统（苏州工业园区）有限公司诉苏州工业园区环境保护局环保行政处罚案

9．夏春官等4人诉东台市环境保护局环评行政许可案

10.正文花园业委会、乾阳佳园业委会诉上海市环保局不服环评报告审批决定案

一、佛山市三英精细材料有限公司诉佛山市顺德区人民政府环保行政处罚案

（一）基本案情

2011年12月2日，广东省佛山市顺德区环境运输和城市管理局（以下简称区环运局）以佛山市三英精细材料有限公司（以下简称三英公司）在生产过程中排放废气的臭气浓度超标为由，对该公司作出《限期治理决定书》，要求2012年1月31日前完成排放臭气浓度治理达到《恶臭污染物排放标准》的要求，并经环运局验收合格；逾期未申请验收或未完成限期治理任务，将按规定责令停业、关闭；要求该公司分析臭气浓度超标排放原因，制定限期治理达标计划以及落实各项污染防治措施，确保污染物达标排放。

2012年2月9日，三英公司向区环运局申请治理验收。顺德区环境保护监测站受区环运局委托，于同年4月26日、6月28日对该公司进行臭气排放监测，两次监测报告均显示臭气浓度未达标。区环运局遂于2012年8月29日组织验收组现场检查并对法定代表人进行调查询问，告知该公司验收结果：即存在未提交限期治理方案、废气处理技术不能确保无组织废气达标排放、排放废气的臭气浓度超标、使用的燃油不符合环保要求等四个方面的问题，未通过限期治理验收。

2013年1月11日，顺德区人民政府作出《行政处罚告知书》，同年3月18日经听证后作出《行政处罚决定书》，决定三英公司自收到行政处罚决定书之日起停业、关闭。该公司不服提起行政诉讼，请求法院撤销上述《行政处罚决定书》。

（二）裁判结果

佛山市中级人民法院一审认为，三英公司对顺德区人民政府作出处罚决定的职权依据及行政程序并无异议。原告认为上述两次臭气排放监测的采样点与频次不符合法定要求，未能排除其他干扰因素，故监测报告的结论不能作为定案依据。经查，顺德区环境保护监测站具有废气污染物检测的法定资质，该监测站两次臭气采样点即监测位置为三英公司厂界敏感点，符合《恶臭污染物排放标准》及国家环境保护总局《关于恶臭物无组织排放检测问题的复函》规定。原告认为臭气监测采样点的设置不合法的主张于法无据，其亦未提供充分证据证明上述臭气监测采样点存在其他干扰因素。至于采样频次问题，该监测站两次臭气监测均采用了4次*3点的监测频次并取其中最大测定值，但频次间隔不足2小时，存在一定瑕疵。但该瑕疵不足以推翻监测报告结论的正确性。由于原告在限期治理期限届满后，经两次监测臭气排放浓度仍未达到《恶臭污染物排放标准》的要求，且存在其他相关环保问题，经区环运局报请顺德区人民政府依照《广东省珠江三角洲大气污染防治办法》有关规定对原告作出停业、关闭的行政处罚决定，认定事实清楚，证据充分，适用法律正确，遂判决驳回原告诉讼请求。原告上诉后，广东省高级人民法院二审判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：当前，环境污染成为群众严重关切的社会问题。治理污染要从源头抓起，本案中行政机关对排污不达标企业提出限期治理要求，仍未达标的，依法作出责令停产、关闭的处罚，于法有据。人民法院在审理此类行政案件中，一方面要依法审查行政机关的执法职权、执法依据和执法程序，另一方面对于废气污染物监测报告等专业性判断和专家证据，也要从证据审查角度给予充分尊重，对合法形成的证据予以采信。人民法院对环境保护管理机关严格处罚污染物排放不达标企业的合法行政行为，依法予以坚决支持。

二、动感酒吧诉武威市凉州区环境保护局环保行政命令案

（一）基本案情

甘肃省武威市凉州区环境保护局（以下简称区环保局）接到其辖区陆羽茶楼对动感酒吧环境噪声污染的投诉后，组织环境检查执法人员和环境检测人员先后于2012年11月23日、12月20日和12月22日22时零5分至23时零5分，对动感酒吧环境噪声及环境噪声污染防治情况实施了现场检查（勘查）和采样检测，其夜间场界4个检测点环境噪声排放值分别达到58. 9dB (A)；55. 4dB (A)；52. 9dB(A)；56.9dB (A);均超过国家《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》(GB22337-2008)规定的环境噪声排放标准。区环保局于2012年12月22日制作了检测报告，认定动感酒吧夜间噪声达58.9分贝，超过国家规定的排放标准，其行为违反了《中华人民共和国环境噪声污染防治法》第四十三条第二款规定，并依据该法第五十九条规定，于2013年1月18日对动感酒吧作出责令改正违法行为决定书：责令其立即停止超标排放环境噪声的违法行为，限于2013年2月28日前，采取隔音降噪措施进行整改，并于2013年2月28日前将改正情况书面报告。动感酒吧于2013年2月27日向区环保局提交了防噪音处理报告及申请，证明其已整改，同时申请对整改后的噪音再次测试，区环保局未予答复，也未再组织测试；同年4月17日，动感酒吧就区环保局于1月18日作出的上述责令改正违法行为决定书向武威市环保局申请复议，复议机关以逾期为由不予受理。遂以区环保局为被告，诉请法院撤销上述责令改正违法行为决定书。

（二）裁判结果

武威市凉州区人民法院一审认为，被告区环保局执法主体资格、执法程序合法。被告的检测报告所适用的检测标准（《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》）与原告所述的检测标准（《标准声环境质量标准》）是法律规定的二个不同的标准，前者是适用于对营业性文化娱乐场所、商业经营活动中使用的向环境排放噪声的设备、设施的管理、评价与控制的排放标准，后者是适用于声环境质量评价与管理的环境质量标准，被告检测噪音的方式方法并不违背法律规定，其检测结果合法有效，遂判决维持被告作出的责令改正违法行为决定书。动感酒吧上诉后，武威市中级人民法院二审认为，被上诉人在夜间经营期间环境噪声排放及环境噪声污染噪声已超过《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》规定限度，其行为违反了《中华人民共和国环境噪声污染防治法》第四十三条第二款“经营中的文化娱乐场所，其经营管理者必须采取有效措施，使其边界噪声不超过国家规定的环境噪声排放标准”的规定，原判认定事实清楚，适用法律准确，判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：对于社会生活中经常发生的噪声扰民现象，环保机关针对群众投诉作出合法适度处理后引发的行政诉讼，人民法院应当依法给予支持。与民事审判处理特定侵权者、受害者之间民事行为及相关赔偿不同，行政审判通过监督环保机关履行保护环境职责，对合法行政行为给予支持，对违法行政行为监督纠正，有利于保护受污染群体的利益，促进人民群众生活环境的改善。本案重要意义还体现于，人民法院以裁判方式明确了噪声相关标准执法适用范围。由国家环境保护部、国家质量监督检验检疫总局2008年10月1日发布施行的《声环境质量标准》、《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》和《工业企业厂界环境噪声排放标准》，是环境检测、执法人员进行噪声监管的重要依据。前一项是环境质量标准，后两项是排放标准，它们的适用范围、检测方法及限值等均有不同，应根据检测对象及目的等因素作出正确选择。本案判决对《声环境质量标准》、《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》的适用范围作了正确区分，对环保机关正确执法和人民法院审理类似行政案件具有示范作用。

三、海丽国际高尔夫球场有限公司诉国家海洋局环保行政处罚案

(一)基本案情

广东省海丰县海丽国际高尔夫球场有限公司（以下简称海丽公司）与海丰县人民政府（以下简称县政府）签订合同约定“征地范围南边的临海沙滩及向外延伸一公里海面给予乙方作为该项目建设旅游的配套设施”。海丽公司在海丰县后门镇红源管区海丽国际高尔夫球场五星级酒店以南海域进行涉案弧形护堤的建设。2009年3月9日，涉案弧形护堤部分形成。2010年3月19日，海监部门在执法检查中发现该公司未取得海域使用权证擅自建设涉案弧形护堤，涉嫌违反《中华人民共和国海域使用管理法》（以下简称《海域法》）第三条的规定。经逐级上报，国家海洋局立案审查。2011年3月，南海勘察中心受海监部门委托作出《汕尾市海丰县海丽国际高尔夫球场海岸线弧形护堤工程海域使用填海面积测量技术报告》，指出涉案弧形护堤填海形成非透水构筑物（堤坝），面积为0.1228公顷。

2011年6月2日，国家海洋局作出《行政处罚听证告知书》，告知海丽公司拟对其作出的处罚及事实和法律依据，经组织召开听证会，同年12月14日作出第12号行政处罚决定：认定海丽公司在未经有权机关批准的情况下，自2010年3月中旬进行涉案弧形护堤工程建设，以在海中直接堆筑碎石的方式进行填海活动，至2010年11月17日技术单位测量之日，填成弧形护堤面积为0.1228公顷。据此，依据《海域法》有关规定和《财政部、国家海洋局关于加强海域使用金征收管理的通知》，责令该公司退还非法占用的海域，恢复海域原状，并处非法占用海域期间内该海域面积应缴纳的海域使用金15倍的罚款人民币82.89万元。该公司不服，申请行政复议。国家海洋局于2012年5月30日作出行政复议决定认为：第12号处罚决定关于海丽公司自2010年3月中旬进行涉案弧形护堤建设的认定与海监部门航空照片显示涉案弧形护堤2009年已存在的情况不一致，系认定事实不清，决定撤销第12号处罚决定。其后，国家海洋局经履行听证告知、举行听证会等程序， 于2012年7月25日作出海监七处罚（2012）003号行政处罚决定书，指出证据显示2009年3月9日涉案弧形护堤已部分形成，至2010年11月17日海监机构委托技术单位进行现场测量之日，该弧形护堤非法占用海域的面积为0.1228公顷；处罚依据与具体内容与上述12号处罚决定相同。海丽公司不服，提起行政诉讼，请求法院撤销海监七处罚（2012）003号行政处罚决定书。

（二）裁判结果

北京市第一中级人民法院一审认为，《国家海域使用管理暂行规定》《广东省海域使用管理规定》等有关规定明确了任何单位或个人实施填海等占用海域的行为均必须依法取得海域使用权，海洋行政主管部门颁发的海域使用权证书是当事人合法使用海域的凭证。本案中，海丽公司未经批准合法取得海域使用权，填海建设弧形护堤的行为，属于《海域法》第四十二条所指未经批准非法占用海域进行填海活动的情形，被诉处罚决定中的该部分认定证据充分，定性准确。海丽公司关于涉案弧形护堤并非建设于海域范围，故国家海洋局无管辖权的诉讼理由，缺乏事实依据，其关于海丰县政府与其签订的合同可以作为其取得海域使用权证明的诉讼理由，缺乏法律依据，遂判决驳回该公司的诉讼请求。海丽公司上诉后，北京市高级人民法院判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：人民法院通过发挥行政审判职能作用，有力地支持了海洋行政主管部门依法实施监督管理，切实保护海洋生态环境。党的十八届三中全会明确提出了完善自然资源监管体制，对海洋资源超载区域等实行限制性措施。海域属于国家所有，任何单位和个人在未依法取得有权机关颁发的海域使用权证书的情况下，不得侵占、买卖或者以其他形式非法转让海域，否则要受到相应的处罚。本案中，虽然海丰县政府与海丽公司签订了合同，允许其使用涉案海域，但依照海域法等有关规定，该公司仍需依法向项目所在地县以上海洋行政主管部门提出申请，并按照《广东省海域使用管理规定》第十一条规定的批准权限逐级上报，由批准机关的同级海洋行政主管部门发给海域使用证。本案的处理对于厘清地方政府与海洋行政主管部门的法定职权，对于相关行政执法和司法实践有着积极示范意义。

四、卢红等204人诉杭州市萧山区环境保护局环保行政许可案

（一）基本案情

杭州萧山城市建设投资集团有限公司（以下简称城投公司，原审第三人）因涉案风情大道改造及南伸项目建设需要，委托浙江省工业环保设计研究院有限公司（以下简称“省环保设计院”）对该项目进行环境影响评价。在涉案环评报告书编制过程中，城投公司分别在建设项目所涉区域对案涉项目的基本情况及其对周边环境可能造成的影响、预防或减轻不良环境影响的对策和措施、环境影响评价结论要点等内容进行了两次公示。省环保设计院通过发放个人调查表和团体调查表的方式进行了公众调查。2012年4月20日，杭州市萧山区环境保护局（以下简称区环保局）与城投公司、省环保设计院和邀请的专家召开了涉案项目环境影响报告书技术评审会并形成评审意见。同年4月23日，区环保局在区办事服务中心大厅的公示栏内张贴案涉项目的《环保审批公示》。公示期间为2012年4月23日至同年5月7日，共10个工作日。公示内容主要为：涉案项目基本情况；涉案项目对环境可能造成的影响；预防或减轻不良环境影响的对策和措施；环境影响评价结论要点；建设单位、环评单位及审批单位的联系方式，并注明征求意见的方式是电话和信件。2012年5月29日，区环保局与城投公司、省环保设计院和邀请的专家召开案涉环评报告书（复审稿）技术复审评审会并形成复审意见。2012年6月，省环保设计院形成环评报告书的送审稿。同年6月28日，城投公司向区环保局报送该环评报告书及相关的申请材料，申请对该环评报告书予以批准。区环保局于同日作出《关于风情大道改造及南伸（金城路-湘湖路）工程环境影响报告书审查意见的函》（以下简称《审查意见函》），同意该项目在萧山规划许可的区域内实施。

卢红等204人称，其均为萧山区风情大道湘湖段“苏黎世小镇”和“奥兰多小镇”两小区的居民。因不服萧山区发展和改革局审批的“风情大道改造及南伸（金城路—湘湖路）工程”可行性研究报告，向杭州市发展和改革委员会提起行政复议。在复议期间，萧山区发展和改革局提供了区环保局的《审查意见函》作为其审批依据。该204人认为涉案项目的建设将对两个小区造成不利影响，区环保局的行政许可行为侵害其合法权益，遂以该局为被告提起行政诉讼，请求法院撤销上述《审查意见函》。

（二）裁判结果

杭州市萧山区人民法院一审认为，根据《浙江省建设项目环境保护管理办法》（以下简称《办法》）第二十二条的规定，环保行政机关受理环境影响报告书审批申请后，除了依法需要保密的建设项目，仍需通过便于公众知晓的方式公开受理信息和环境影响报告书的查询方式以及公众享有的权利等事项，并征求公众意见，征求公众意见的期限不得少于７日。本案中，被告区环保局称其2012年4月23日受理第三人城建公司就案涉环评报告书提出的审批申请，而第三人委托评价单位省环保设计院编制的、用于申请被告批准的涉案环评报告书（报批稿）形成于2013年6月。因此，即使被告确实是2012年4月23日受理了第三人的申请，由于需要审批的环评报告书（报批稿）此时尚未编制完成，被告主张的受理行为亦不合法。被告在《承诺件受理通知书》中明确表示第三人向其申请环评审批的时间是2012年6月28日，而被告于同日即作出被诉《审查意见函》，对案涉环评报告书予以批准，其行为明显违反《办法》第二十二条关于环评审批行政机关在审批环节应进行公示和公众调查的相关规定，严重违反法定程序。据此，判决撤销被告作出《审查意见函》的具体行政行为。一审宣判后，各方当事人均未上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：环保机关受理环境影响报告书审批申请的基本前提是该报告书已正式形成，且环保机关受理后应依法履行公开该报告书并征求公众意见的程序后，才可予以审批。人民法院要严格审查行政行为是否履行了法定程序和正当程序，是否充分尊重了当事人的知情权、表达权，如果认为行政行为存在程序违法或明显不当的，有权确认违法或予以撤销。近年来，有的地方政府和行政机关，为了加快城市化建设进程，不惜违反行政程序超常规审批某些建设项目，有的甚至以牺牲人民群众的环境权益为代价，造成不良的社会影响。只有严格依法依规，按程序办事，才能真正有利于促进城市环境改善和社会和谐安宁。本案中，区环保局存在明显的程序违法情形，其所主张的受理城投公司提出的环评报告书审批申请的时间，尚未形成正式报批稿；其在环评报告编制过程中所公示的《环保审批公示》，不能替代《办法》所要求环保机关在申请人正式报送环评报告及相关申请材料后对环境影响报告书进行公示和公众调查的程序和义务。法院基于其程序的严重违法，判决撤销了被诉行政行为，对于彰显程序公正和促进行政机关依法行政，具有很好的示范效应。

五、君宁机械厂诉六安市金安区环境保护局环保行政处罚案

（一）基本案情

安徽省六安市金安区君宁机械厂（以下简称君宁机械厂）于2012年4月11日租用六安光华厂家属区房屋，安装机械设备从事铸铁金属件制造和金属制品加工制造，但未依法报批建设项目环境影响评价文件。该厂在生产过程中使用乳化液对工件进行润滑和降温，有废水、固体废物和噪声产生，但该厂除对固体废物进行简单的堆放收集外，对其他污染未做任何处理，也未建设相关的环境保护设施。该厂所在居民区居民多次上访反映其产生的噪声等污染严重影响群众正常生活。六安市金安区环境保护局（以下简称区环保局）经现场检查、调查取证、集体讨论等程序于2012年8月5日对该厂作出了行政处罚决定书以及限期补办决定书，责令君宁机械厂停止生产、限期补办环评手续，同时罚款五万元。该厂对此不服申请行政复议，经区人民政府复议后决定维持上述两个决定。该厂仍不服，以区环保局为被告提起行政诉讼，请求法院撤销上述两个决定。

（二）裁判结果

六安市金安区人民法院一审认为，本案原告君宁机械厂在居民区从事机械加工生产，由此产生废水、固体废物及噪声等污染物，对周边环境及居民生活造成了一定影响，应当依法办理环评手续，并配套建设环境保护设施后，才能正式投入生产。但原告在未办理环评手续，也未建设配套环保设施情况下，从事机械加工生产，显已违反了上述法律规定。被告区环保局依法对其作出行政处罚决定和限期补办决定，符合法律规定，依法应予支持，遂判决驳回原告诉讼请求。

君宁机械厂上诉后，六安市中级人民法院二审认为，上诉人君宁机械厂作为个体工商户，经营范围经工商部门核准登记为“机械加工”。国家环境保护部2008年颁布的《建设项目环境影响评价分类管理目录》，明确将机械加工类纳入到环境影响评价管理范围内。因此上诉人在投产前，理应先办理环境影响评价手续。区环保局基于举报在立案查处上诉人污染环境过程中，发现该厂未办理环境影响评价手续，根据相关法律法规的规定，在履行了法定程序后，依法作出责令其限期补办环评手续的决定，并无不妥。上诉人在加工生产过程中，确实存在排放污染的现象，且并未配套建设环保设施，对周边环境已造成一定影响，故被上诉人依照《建设项目环境保护管理条例》的规定，责令其停止生产并处以罚款五万元，于法有据。二审判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：人民法院通过司法审查，支持环保机关针对废水、固体废物和噪声排放企业作出的合法处理决定，有力地维护人民群众环境权益。本案中，涉案企业从事属于需要办理环境影响评价手续的行业，但在未取得任何环评手续的情况下，擅自在居民区内从事金属加工制造。而其生产过程中产生的噪声、排放的污染物又对周边居民的生活、学习造成一定影响。因此，环境保护部门依法对其进行行政处罚，并要求其限期整改，以合法正当的行政执法维护公民良好的居住生活环境，人民法院应当依法予以支持。

六、苏耀华诉广东省博罗县人民政府划定禁养区范围通告案

（一）基本案情

2006年底，苏耀华与广东省博罗县农业科技示范场签订了《承包土地合同书》，在涉案土地上经营养殖场，养殖猪苗，并先后领取了《税务登记证》、《排放污染物许可证》和《个体工商户营业执照》。2012年3月22日，博罗县人民政府发布《关于将罗浮山国家级现代农业科技示范园划入禁养区范围的通告》（以下简称《通告》），要求此前禁养区内已有的畜禽养殖场（点）于当年6月30日前自行搬迁或清理，违者将依据有关法律、法规进行处理，直至关闭。

此后，博罗县环境保护局、畜牧局均以《通告》为由不予通过养殖场的排污许可证、动物防疫合格证的年审；县国土资源局以养殖场未按规定申请办理用地手续，未取得县人民政府批准同意擅自兴建畜禽养殖房为由，要求养殖场自行关闭并拆除畜禽养殖房，恢复土地原状；县住房和城乡建设局对养殖场发出了《行政处罚告知书》，以养殖场的建筑未取得建设工程规划许可证为由，拟给予限期拆除的处罚。苏耀华对县人民政府作出的上述《通告》不服，提起行政诉讼，请求法院判决撤销该《通告》。

（二）裁判结果

惠州市中级人民法院一审认为，根据《广东省环境保护条例》《中华人民共和国畜牧法》有关规定，被告博罗县人民政府有权将其管辖的罗浮山国家级现代农业科技示范园划定为畜禽禁养区，县政府已将《通告》告知并送达有关畜牧养殖户，《通告》明确告知当事人应履行的义务。被告划定畜禽禁养区完全合乎法律规定，遂判决维持《通告》。

苏耀华上诉后，广东省高级人民法院二审认为，罗浮山国家级现代农业科技示范园承担着农业科技推广的任务，需要严格的环境保护条件。科技示范园附近的河道连接着当地饮用水源地，在科技示范园内进行畜禽养殖有可能造成空气和水质污染。博罗县人民政府有权依据畜牧法、《畜禽养殖污染防治管理办法》和《广东省环境保护条例》相关规定，根据环境保护的需要，将其管辖的罗浮山国家级现代农业科技示范园划定为畜禽禁养区。据此，二审判决维持原判，驳回上诉。

但二审法院同时认为，苏耀华经营养殖场的行为发生在《通告》作出之前，已经依法领取了《税务登记证》、《排放污染物许可证》和《个体工商户营业执照》，其合法经营行为应当受到法律保护。根据行政许可法第八条的规定，虽然博罗县人民政府有权根据环境保护这一公共利益的需要划定畜禽禁养区，但亦应当对因此遭受损失的苏耀华依法给予补偿。县人民政府发布《通告》要求养殖场自行搬迁或清理，未涉及对苏耀华的任何补偿事宜显然不妥。环保、国土、住建等部门对苏耀华及其养殖场作出行政处罚、不予年审等行为的依据均是《通告》，县人民政府不能以此为由否定苏耀华的合法经营行为。苏耀华可依照《最高人民法院关于审理行政许可案件若干问题的规定》第十四条的规定，另行提出有关行政补偿的申请。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：人民法院在维护行政机关环境保护监管行为的同时，也注重利益的平衡，较好地诠释了环境行政管理活动中的信赖保护原则。虽然县级以上人民政府有权根据环境保护的需要，划定畜禽禁养区，严禁在畜禽禁养区内从事畜禽养殖业，也可要求已有的畜禽养殖场（点）自行搬迁或清理，即变更或撤回养殖户的生产经营许可。但与此同时，也应当考虑到在此之前合法经营的畜禽养殖户的利益保护问题，应根据《行政许可法》第八条所体现的信赖保护原则精神，对行政许可因环境公共利益需要被变更或撤回而遭受损失的合法养殖户依法给予补偿。在环境行政管理活动中，政府及环保部门需注重公共利益与私人利益的平衡，不能只考虑环境保护的需要，忽视合法经营者的信赖利益。尤其要防止为了逃避补偿责任，有意找各种理由将合法的生产经营活动认定为“违法”的现象。本案由于原告并未提出行政补偿的诉讼请求，二审法院在维持被告《通告》的同时，明确指出被告未就补偿事宜作出处理，甚至以“事后”提出的原告行为不合法为由不予补偿，明显不当，并告知原告可另行提出补偿申请的法律救济途径，处理适当。

七、泉州弘盛石业有限公司诉晋江市环境保护局环保行政管理案

（一）基本案情

福建省晋江市环境保护局（以下简称市环保局）于2012年7月5日现场检查发现泉州弘盛石业有限公司（以下简称弘盛公司）在从事石材加工生产过程中，存在需要配套建设的水污染防治设施和未经环境保护主管部门验收（合格）而投入生产情形，遂于同年7月20日作出行政处罚决定，责令该公司停止生产并罚款人民币6万元。弘盛公司认为市环保局向其核发过《排放污染物临时许可证》，明确其建设项目的污水排放已达到零排放标准，符合项目环境保护的要求，应视同验收合格，遂申请行政复议。泉州市环境保护局复议后，决定维持上述行政处罚决定。弘盛公司仍不服，以市环保局为被告提起行政诉讼，请求法院撤销该行政处罚决定。

（二）裁判结果

晋江市人民法院一审认为，原告弘盛公司作为石材加工企业，在生产过程中必然产生污水等污染物，必须建设水污染防治设施并经验收合格才能投产。被告市环保局对其核发《排放污染物临时许可证》，准许其临时排放污染物，并不能视同原告的水污染防治设施验收合格，不能免除水污染防治设施应当经过环境保护主管部门验收合格方可投产的义务。原告在《排放污染物临时许可证》已过期的情形下继续生产，且水污染防治设施仍未经环保部门验收合格，其行为不属于行政处罚法第二十九条规定的不予处罚情形，且违法行为呈持续状态，行政处罚的追诉时效应从违法行为终了之日起计算。被告在作出行政处罚前，已依法作出《行政处罚告知书》并送达原告，告知原告所享有的权利，遂判决维持被告作出的行政处罚决定书。弘盛公司上诉后，泉州市中级人民法院二审以相同理由判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：人民法院通过判决的方式进一步明晰了环保机关核发《排放污染物临时许可证》，不能视同水污染防治设施已经验收合格。产生污水等污染物的排污企业，必须依法建设水污染防治设施并经环保机关验收合格后才能投入生产，否则环保机关有权依据水污染防治法以及地方性法规等规范性文件对违法排污企业予以处罚。本案中，弘盛公司主张所领取的《排放污染物临时许可证》应视同水污染防治设施验收合格的理由不能成立，同时还存在《排放污染物临时许可证》已过期继续生产的情形，且该许可证允许其对外排放的污染物种类中不包括废水等。法院支持对其作出停止生产和罚款的行政处罚是正确的。此外，本案在法律适用上，结合污染物种类明确了对于废水的排放应适用水污染防治法，而对于“液态废物”的排放则适用固体废物污染环境防治法，具有直接指导环保机关行政执法和人民法院审理相关案件的实践意义。

八、梦达驰汽车系统（苏州工业园区）有限公司诉苏州工业园区环境保护局环保行政处罚案

（一）基本案情

江苏省苏州市工业园区环境保护局（以下简称园区环保局）连续接到汀兰家园小区居民关于周围企业产生异味影响正常生活和健康的投诉，于2013年9月起对该小区周边企业废气排放情况集中排查整治，划定包括梦达驰汽车系统（苏州工业园区）有限公司（以下简称梦达驰公司）在内的58家企业作为检查对象。同年9月30日，园区环保局执法人员会同苏州市环境监察支队执法人员至梦达驰公司进行执法检查时，该公司保安以未办理来访预约为由拒绝执法人员进入现场检查。执法人员随即拨打110报警求助，在民警和执法人员的要求下，保安电话联系公司环保负责人后仍以未预约为由拒绝执法人员进入现场检查。园区环保局执法人员因受阻挠而认为丧失最佳检查时机，故未强行进入现场进行检查。2013年12月6日，园区环保局向该公司邮寄送达了《行政处罚事先告知书》。在规定的期限内，该公司未向园区环保局提出陈述申辩意见。同年12月20日，园区环保局作出行政处罚决定，认定2013年9月30日园区环保局依法对梦达驰公司开展废气排放企业专项现场检查时，该公司拒绝其入内开展检查，违反大气污染防治法关于“环境保护行政主管部门和其他监督管理部门有权对管辖范围内的排污单位进行现场检查，被检查单位必须如实反映情况，提供必要的资料”的规定，根据行政处罚法、大气污染防治法有关规定，对该公司处以罚款人民币4万元的行政处罚。梦达驰公司不服，提起行政诉讼，请求法院撤销该行政处罚决定。

（二）裁判结果

苏州市姑苏区人民法院一审认为，国家环境保护行政机关依法实施环境保护执法检查，是法律赋予执法机关的权力和职责，原告梦达驰公司的内部管理规定不能对抗国家强制性法律规定。原告以公司管理规定为由阻碍、拒绝依法进行的行政执法行为，在公安民警到场介入的情况下，仍拒绝检查，其行为已构成拒绝执法检查。根据大气污染防治法相关规定，拒绝环境保护行政主管部门或者其他监督管理部门现场检查，环境保护行政主管部门或者法律规定的监督管理部门可以根据不同情节，责令停止违法行为，限期改正，给予警告或者处以五万元以下罚款，原告无正当理由拒绝被告的执法检查，事后也未及时采取补救、改正措施，其主观过错较大。被告对原告所作出的罚款在法定处罚幅度内，并无不当。故判决驳回原告的诉讼请求。一审宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：人民法院通过行政审判切实维护了环保机关的法定检查权和行政执法权威，裁判结果无论对被处罚企业还是其他相关排污企业，都是一次有意义的警示教育。现场检查是环境保护行政部门收集证据、制止环境污染违法行为的重要程序和手段，被检查单位拒绝环境保护行政部门现场检查的行为，依法应予处罚。

九、夏春官等4人诉东台市环境保护局环评行政许可案

（一）基本案情

夏春官等4人系江苏省东台市东台镇景范新村19幢的住户，其住宅与四季辉煌沐浴广场（原审第三人）上下相邻。四季辉煌沐浴广场为新建洗浴服务项目，在涉案地段承租了营业用房作为经营场地，项目投资250万元，其中环保投资25万元，先后于2013年2月25日就涉案建设项目报东台市东台镇人民政府审批，于2013年3月12日向东台市环境保护局（以下简称市环保局）提交了《建设项目环境影响申报（登记）表》，并根据该局有关须委托有资质的环评单位编制环境影响报告表的意见，委托东台市环境科学研究所编制相关报告表，其后送至该局进行审批。2013年4月1日，市环保局作出《关于对东台市东台镇四季辉煌沐浴广场洗浴服务项目环境影响报告表的审批意见》（以下简称《审批意见》），同意四季辉煌沐浴广场在景范新村17号楼及19号楼之间新建洗浴服务项目，并对该项目在运营过程中产生的废、污水的处理、场界噪声对邻近声环境质量的影响及各类固体废物处置等提出了具体要求。夏春官等4人认为市环保局在没有召开座谈会、论证会以及征询公众意见的情况下，即作出《审批意见》，侵犯了其合法权益，故提起行政诉讼，请求法院撤销该《审批意见》。

（二）裁判结果

江苏省东台市人民法院一审认为，被告市环保局具有对本辖区建设项目的环境影响报告表进行审批的职权。行政许可法第四十七条规定“行政许可直接涉及申请人与他人之间重大利益关系的，行政机关在作出行政许可决定前，应当告知申请人、利害关系人享有要求听证的权利……。”对何谓“重大利益关系”，我国现行法律、法规、规章以及司法解释虽无具体规定，但涉及民生利益的问题，不应排除在“重大利益关系”之外。本案原告夏春官等4人的住宅与第三人四季辉煌沐浴广场相邻。第三人新建的洗浴项目投入运营后所产生的潮湿及热、噪声污染等，不能排除对原告的生活造成重大影响的可能，被告在作出《审批意见》前应当告知4名原告享有听证的权利，其未告知即径行作出《审批意见》违反法定程序，遂判决撤销该《审批意见》。

四季辉煌沐浴广场上诉后，盐城市中级人民法院二审认为，环境影响评价法第二十二条对建设项目环境影响评价文件的审批部门、审批权限和审批决定时限等问题作了明确规定，对审批部门行政许可的具体程序没有作出规定。但是，行政许可法对行政许可的设定和实施程序提出明确要求。本案被诉行政行为属于涉及建设项目环境影响评价的行政许可行为，应当按照行政许可法规定的程序进行审批。夏春官等4个家庭作为与本案审批项目直接相邻的利害关系人，应当认定与审批项目存在重大利益关系。环保机关在审查和作出这类事关民生权益的行政许可时，应当告知夏春官等人享有陈述、申辩和听证的权利，并听取其意见。原审法院认定市环保局未履行告知听证义务，违反法定程序并无不当，故判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：人民法院通过严格审慎的审查，分析了行政许可法第四十七条有关是否存在“重大利益关系”以及听证程序的适用条件，最终撤销环保机关作出的被诉行政行为，保障了公民在环境管理领域的知情权、陈述权、申辩权和听证等权利，很大程度上彰显了程序正义和司法公正。本案作为一起典型的体现公众参与原则的环保行政许可案件，同时也是一起与群众利益息息相关的民生案件，两审法院以环保机关所审批的洗浴项目与相邻群众存在重大利益关系，未告知陈述、申辩和听证的权利违反法定程序为由，撤销环保机关作出的审批意见，既有力地维护了相邻群众的合法权益，又强化了司法对行政权力的监督，对引导和规范环保机关的同类审批行为，促进公众参与环境行政许可的决策与监督，提高行政审批的程序意识，具有重要意义。

十、正文花园业委会、乾阳佳园业委会诉上海市环保局不服环评报告审批决定案

（一）基本案情

2012年5月14日，上海市规划和国土资源管理局向国网上海市电力公司（以下简称电力公司）核发了500kV虹杨输变电工程《建设项目选址意见书》，明确了项目用地位置。一审原告正文花园（二期）小区、乾阳佳园小区毗邻虹杨变电站站址。同年6月25日，上海市环境保护管理局（以下简称市环保局）受理电力公司提出的《500kV虹杨输变电工程环境影响报告书》（以下简称《环评报告》）审批申请，并网上公示了受理信息。同日，市环保局委托上海市环境科学研究院开展该工程环评文件的技术评估。同年7月5日，上海市环境科学研究院向被告出具了技术评估报告，认为《环评报告》符合相关环保技术标准，评价结论总体可信。同年7月17日，市环保局组织召开专家咨询会，与会专家认为市环保局对公众反映问题的说明和处理符合有关规定；虹杨输变电项目对周边环境影响符合相关环保标准，项目不会影响周边居民的重大环境利益。同年8月6日，市环保局经审查认为，电力公司提交的《环评报告》符合相关要求，拟作出批准决定，遂在“上海环境网”就该工程拟批准情况进行公示。同年10月22日，市环保局作出《关于500kV虹杨输变电工程环境影响报告书的审批意见》，同意项目建设。上海市杨浦区正文花园（二期）业主委员会、乾阳佳园业主委员会认为居民小区附近不应建高压变电站项目，被告不考虑建设项目对居民的实际影响而作出审批系违法，向环境保护部申请行政复议，复议机关维持审批决定后，向上海市黄浦区人民法院提起行政诉讼。

（二）裁判结果

一审法院认为，被告受理电力公司申请后，就相关情况进行了公示，委托有关单位对《环评报告》进行了技术评估，并组织召开专家咨询会，在审查《环评报告》、技术评估报告等文件后，作出环评审批决定，履行了法定程序，但做出审批时间超过了法规规定时间，属程序瑕疵。《环评报告》的编制单位具有相应资质，《环评报告》依据相关编制标准对涉案建设项目的各项环保指标进行了评价，并据此得出环评结论，符合环评技术规范和法律规定的要求。

原告在诉讼中主张，被告审批过程中不应以专家咨询会替代听证会、论证会、座谈会等公众参与，电力公司在编制环评报告过程中，公众参与不符合法定要求。法院认为，被告在环评文件审批过程中的公众参与活动有专家咨询会意见、网上公示信息等证据证明，根据《环境影响评价公众参与暂行办法》规定，环评审批过程中环保部门可以通过咨询专家意见的方式开展公众参与，故被告的公众参与活动与法不悖。对于环评过程中的公众参与问题，《环评报告》中对180份调查问卷的发放和分布、公众参与信息公示等均有明确记载，并附录了公众意见采纳或不采纳的说明。因此，环评文件编制过程中公众参与活动的开展符合法律、法规的要求。据此，一审判决驳回原告诉讼请求。原告上诉后，上海市第二中级人民法院二审判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于，在环境保护行政案件中对公众参与程序的司法审查是重要环节。公众参与是实现人民权利的基本途径，是落实人民重要地位的重要体现，是民主决策和科学决策的重要保障。特别是环境保护问题与群众生活休戚相关，更应该加强对公众参与的监督。为推进和规范环境影响评价活动中的公众参与，国家环境保护总局发布了《环境影响评价公众参与暂行办法》，对公众参与的形式、内容等做了明确规定。人民法院审查环评报告审批行为，应严格依据相关规定进行审查。本案一、二审法院均将公众参与作为审查重点，审理思路清晰，指导思想明确，所作出的判断和处理符合法律规定。

catalogue

1. Foshan Sanying Fine Materials Co., Ltd. v. Shunde District People's Government of Foshan City Environmental Protection Administrative Penalty Case

2. Dynamic Bar v. Environmental Protection Administrative Order of Liangzhou District Environmental Protection Bureau in Wuwei City

3. Haili International Golf Course Co., Ltd. v. State Oceanic Administration for Environmental Protection Administrative Penalty Case

4. Lu Hong and 204 others sued the Environmental Protection Administration License Case of Xiaoshan District Environmental Protection Bureau in Hangzhou City

5. Junning Machinery Factory v. Environmental Protection Administration Punishment Case of Jin'an District Environmental Protection Bureau in Lu'an City

6. Su Yaohua v. Announcement of the People's Government of Boluo County, Guangdong Province on Delimitation of the Scope of Prohibited Breeding Areas

7. Quanzhou Hongsheng Stone Industry Co., Ltd. v. Environmental Protection Administration of Jinjiang Environmental Protection Bureau

8. Mengdachi Automotive System (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd. v. Suzhou Industrial Park Environmental Protection Bureau Environmental Protection Administrative Penalty Case

9. Xia Chunguan and four others sued the Environmental Impact Assessment Administrative License Case of Dongtai Environmental Protection Bureau

10. Case of the Garden Industry Committee and Qianyang Jiayuan Industry Committee suing the Shanghai Environmental Protection Bureau for not accepting the approval decision of the environmental impact assessment report

1、 Foshan Sanying Fine Materials Co., Ltd. v. Shunde District People's Government of Foshan City Environmental Protection Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On December 2, 2011, the Environmental Transport and Urban Management Bureau of Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as the District Environmental Transport Bureau) issued a "Deadline Control Decision" to Foshan Sanying Fine Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sanying Company) on the grounds that the odor concentration in the exhaust gas emitted during the production process exceeded the standard, requiring the company to complete the odor concentration control before January 31, 2012 and meet the requirements of the "Odor Pollutant Emission Standard", And passed the acceptance by the Environmental Transport Bureau; Those who fail to apply for acceptance within the specified time limit or fail to complete the deadline for governance tasks will be ordered to suspend business or close down according to regulations; The company is required to analyze the reasons for the excessive emission of odor concentration, develop a deadline treatment and compliance plan, and implement various pollution prevention and control measures to ensure that pollutants are discharged in accordance with the standards.

On February 9, 2012, Sanying Company applied to the District Environmental Transport Bureau for governance acceptance. The Shunde District Environmental Protection Monitoring Station, commissioned by the District Environmental Transport Bureau, conducted odor emission monitoring on the company on April 26 and June 28 of the same year. Both monitoring reports showed that the odor concentration did not meet the standards. On August 29, 2012, the District Environmental Transport Bureau organized an on-site inspection by the acceptance team and conducted an investigation and inquiry with the legal representative, informing the company of the acceptance results: there were four issues: failure to submit a deadline treatment plan, inability to ensure unorganized exhaust gas emissions meet the standards, excessive odor concentration in the exhaust gas emissions, and the use of fuel that did not meet environmental requirements. The company did not pass the deadline treatment acceptance.

On January 11, 2013, the Shunde District People's Government issued an "Administrative Penalty Notice", and on March 18 of the same year, after a hearing, issued an "Administrative Penalty Decision", deciding that Sanying Company would cease operations and close down from the date of receiving the administrative penalty decision. The company is dissatisfied with filing an administrative lawsuit and requests the court to revoke the aforementioned Administrative Penalty Decision.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Foshan City held in the first instance that Sanying Company had no objection to the authority basis and administrative procedures for the punishment decision made by the Shunde District People's Government. The plaintiff believes that the sampling points and frequency of the two odor emission monitoring events mentioned above do not meet the statutory requirements and other interfering factors have not been ruled out. Therefore, the conclusion of the monitoring report cannot be used as a basis for finalizing the case. After investigation, the Environmental Protection Monitoring Station in Shunde District has the legal qualification for exhaust gas pollutant detection. The two odor sampling points of the monitoring station, namely the monitoring location, are sensitive points at the boundary of Sanying Company, which comply with the "Emission Standards for Odor Pollutants" and the "Reply on Unorganized Emission Detection of Odor Pollutants" issued by the State Environmental Protection Administration. The plaintiff's claim that the setting of odor monitoring sampling points is illegal is unfounded by law, and they have not provided sufficient evidence to prove the existence of other interference factors at the aforementioned odor monitoring sampling points. As for the sampling frequency issue, the monitoring station used a monitoring frequency of 4 times * 3 points for both odor monitoring, and the maximum measurement value was taken. However, the frequency interval was less than 2 hours, which had certain flaws. But this flaw is not enough to overturn the correctness of the monitoring report conclusion. Since the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of the Emission Standard of Odor Pollutants after twice monitoring the odor emission concentration after the expiration of the deadline for remediation, and there were other related environmental problems, the District Environmental Transport Bureau reported to the Shunde District People's Government to make an administrative penalty decision for the plaintiff to suspend business or close down in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Measures for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution in the the Pearl River Delta of Guangdong Province, and found that the facts were clear, the evidence was sufficient, and the applicable law was correct, The original lawsuit request was rejected in the judgment. After the plaintiff appealed, the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court rejected the appeal in the second instance and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that currently, environmental pollution has become a serious social issue of concern to the public. To control pollution, it is necessary to start from the source. In this case, the administrative authorities have requested a deadline for the treatment of enterprises that do not meet the standards. If they still fail to meet the standards, they will be ordered to suspend production or close down in accordance with the law, which is legally valid. In handling such administrative cases, people's courts should, on the one hand, review the law enforcement powers, basis, and procedures of administrative agencies in accordance with the law, and on the other hand, fully respect professional judgments and expert evidence such as exhaust gas pollutant monitoring reports from the perspective of evidence review, and accept legally formed evidence. The people's court firmly supports the strict punishment of enterprises with substandard pollutant emissions by environmental protection management agencies for their legitimate administrative actions in accordance with the law.

2、 Dynamic Bar v. Environmental Protection Administrative Order of Liangzhou District Environmental Protection Bureau in Wuwei City

（1） Basic facts of the case

The Environmental Protection Bureau of Liangzhou District, Wuwei City, Gansu Province (hereinafter referred to as the District Environmental Protection Bureau) received a complaint from Luyu Tea House in its jurisdiction regarding environmental noise pollution in the Dynamic Bar. On November 23, December 20, and December 22, 2012 from 22:05 to 23:05, environmental inspection and law enforcement personnel and environmental testing personnel were organized to conduct on-site inspections (surveys) and sampling tests on the environmental noise and prevention and control of the Dynamic Bar, The environmental noise emission values of the four detection points at the nighttime boundary reached 58 9dB (A); 55. 4dB (A); 52.9dB (A); 56.9dB (A); They all exceed the environmental noise emission standards specified in the national "Social Living Environment Noise Emission Standard" (GB22337-2008). On December 22, 2012, the District Environmental Protection Bureau produced a testing report and found that the nighttime noise of the Dynamic Bar reached 58.9 decibels, exceeding the national emission standards. Its behavior violated Article 43 (2) of the Environmental Noise Pollution Prevention and Control Law of the People's Republic of China, and in accordance with Article 59 of the law, On January 18, 2013, a decision was made to order the Dynamic Bar to correct its illegal behavior: it was ordered to immediately stop the illegal behavior of excessive emission of environmental noise, and to take sound insulation and noise reduction measures for rectification before February 28, 2013. The correction situation was reported in writing before February 28, 2013. On February 27, 2013, the Dynamic Bar submitted a noise prevention treatment report and application to the district environmental protection bureau, proving that it had been rectified. At the same time, it applied for a retest of the rectified noise. The district environmental protection bureau did not respond or organize further testing; On April 17 of the same year, the Dynamic Bar applied for reconsideration to the Wuwei City Environmental Protection Bureau regarding the above-mentioned order to correct the illegal behavior made by the district environmental protection bureau on January 18. The reconsideration authority refused to accept it on the grounds of overdue payment. Sui sued the District Environmental Protection Bureau as the defendant to request the court to revoke the decision to correct the illegal behavior mentioned above.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Liangzhou District, Wuwei City held in the first instance that the qualification of the defendant's environmental protection bureau as the law enforcement subject and the law enforcement procedures were legal. The testing standards applicable to the defendant's testing report (the "Emission Standards for Social Living Environment Noise") and the testing standards stated by the plaintiff (the "Standard Acoustic Environment Quality Standards") are two different standards stipulated by law. The former is the emission standards applicable to the management, evaluation, and control of equipment and facilities used in commercial cultural and entertainment venues and commercial activities that emit noise to the environment, The latter is an environmental quality standard applicable to the evaluation and management of acoustic environmental quality. The defendant's method of detecting noise does not violate legal provisions, and the test results are legal and valid. Therefore, the defendant's decision to order correction of illegal behavior is upheld. After the appeal of the Dynamic Bar, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuwei City held in the second instance that the appellant's environmental noise emissions and pollution noise during the night operation period had exceeded the limits specified in the "Social Living Environmental Noise Emission Standards", His behavior violates the provisions of Article 43 (2) of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Noise Pollution, which stipulates that for cultural and entertainment venues under operation, their managers must take effective measures to ensure that their boundary noise does not exceed the national environmental noise emission standards. The original judgment is clear in the facts and accurate in the application of law. The appeal is rejected and the original judgment is upheld.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court should provide support in accordance with the law for administrative litigation caused by environmental protection agencies' legal and appropriate handling of public complaints regarding the frequent noise disturbance in social life. Unlike civil trials that deal with specific infringers and victims' civil actions and related compensation, administrative trials provide support for legitimate administrative actions by supervising environmental protection agencies to fulfill their environmental protection responsibilities, and supervise and correct illegal administrative actions, which is beneficial for protecting the interests of polluted groups and promoting the improvement of the living environment of the people. The significance of this case is also reflected in the fact that the people's court has clarified the scope of application of noise related standards in law enforcement through adjudication. The "Acoustic Environmental Quality Standards", "Social Living Environmental Noise Emission Standards", and "Industrial Enterprise Boundary Environmental Noise Emission Standards" issued and implemented by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 2008 are important basis for environmental testing and law enforcement personnel to conduct noise supervision. The former is the environmental quality standard, while the latter two are emission standards. Their scope of application, testing methods, and limits are different, and the correct selection should be made based on factors such as the testing object and purpose. The judgment in this case correctly distinguishes the scope of application between the "Acoustic Environment Quality Standards" and the "Social Living Environment Noise Emission Standards", which has a demonstrative effect on the correct law enforcement by environmental protection agencies and the trial of similar administrative cases by people's courts.

3、 Haili International Golf Course Co., Ltd. v. State Oceanic Administration Environmental Protection Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Guangdong Haifeng County Haili International Golf Course Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Haili Company) and the Haifeng County People's Government (hereinafter referred to as the County Government) have signed a contract stipulating that "the coastal beach to the south of the land acquisition area and the sea surface extending one kilometer outward will be provided to Party B as supporting facilities for the construction of tourism for this project". Haili Company carried out the construction of a curved embankment in the South China Sea area of the Haili International Golf Course five-star hotel in Hongyuan District, Houmen Town, Haifeng County. On March 9, 2009, the curved embankment part involved in the case was formed. On March 19, 2010, the maritime supervision department discovered during a law enforcement inspection that the company had not obtained a sea area use right certificate to construct a curved embankment involved in the case, suspected of violating Article 3 of the Sea Area Use Management Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Sea Area Law). After being reported level by level, the State Oceanic Administration has filed a case for review. In March 2011, the South China Sea Survey Center was commissioned by the maritime supervision department to issue the "Technical Report on the Measurement of Reclamation Area for the Coastal Arc Protection Project of Haili International Golf Course in Haifeng County, Shanwei City", which pointed out that the involved arc protection embankment formed an impermeable structure (dam) by filling the sea, with an area of 0.1228 hectares.

On June 2, 2011, the State Oceanic Administration issued the "Notice of Administrative Penalty Hearing", informing Haili Company of the punishment it intends to impose, as well as the facts and legal basis. After organizing a hearing, on December 14 of the same year, the 12th Administrative Penalty Decision was made: Haili Company was deemed to have carried out the construction of the involved curved embankment project in mid March 2010 without the approval of the competent authority, and carried out reclamation activities by directly stacking crushed stones in the sea, As of November 17, 2010, as of the date of technical unit measurement, the area of the filled curved embankment was 0.1228 hectares. Based on this, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Sea Area Law and the Notice of the Ministry of Finance and the State Oceanic Administration on Strengthening the Collection and Management of Sea Area Use Fees, the company is ordered to return the illegally occupied sea area, restore the sea area to its original state, and impose a fine of RMB 828900, which is 15 times the amount of sea area use fees that should be paid during the illegal occupation of the sea area. The company is dissatisfied and applies for administrative reconsideration. On May 30, 2012, the State Oceanic Administration made an administrative reconsideration decision stating that the determination of Haili Company's involvement in the construction of the arc-shaped embankment since mid March 2010 was inconsistent with the situation shown in the aviation photos of the maritime supervision department that the arc-shaped embankment had already existed in 2009, and the determination of the facts was unclear. Therefore, the decision to revoke the penalty decision No. 12 was made. Subsequently, the State Oceanic Administration, after fulfilling the procedures of hearing, notification, and holding a hearing, issued the Administrative Penalty Decision No. 003 (2012) on July 25, 2012, stating that the evidence showed that the arc-shaped embankment involved in the case had partially formed on March 9, 2009. As of November 17, 2010, when the maritime supervision agency commissioned a technical unit to conduct on-site measurement, the area illegally occupied by the arc-shaped embankment in the sea area was 0.1228 hectares; The punishment basis and specific content are the same as the punishment decision No. 12 mentioned above. Haili Company is not satisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the court to revoke the Administrative Penalty Decision (2012) No. 003 issued by the Haijian Seventh Penalty.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court held that relevant provisions such as the "Provisional Regulations on the Administration of the Use of National Seas" and the "Regulations on the Administration of the Use of Guangdong Province Seas" clearly stipulate that any unit or individual who engages in the occupation of sea areas such as reclamation must obtain the right to use the sea area in accordance with the law. The certificate of the right to use the sea area issued by the marine administrative department is a proof of the legitimate use of the sea area by the parties involved. In this case, Haili Company's unauthorized acquisition of the right to use the sea area and the construction of curved embankments in the sea area belong to the situation of unauthorized illegal occupation of the sea area for reclamation activities referred to in Article 42 of the Sea Area Law. The evidence for determining this part of the defendant's punishment decision is sufficient and the qualitative accuracy is accurate. Haili Company's claim that the arc-shaped embankment involved in the case was not built within the sea area, therefore the State Oceanic Administration has no jurisdictional litigation grounds and lacks factual basis. The contract signed by the Haifeng County Government can serve as a litigation ground for obtaining the sea area use right, and lacks legal basis. Therefore, the court rejected the company's lawsuit request. After Haili Company appealed, the Beijing Higher People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in the fact that the people's court has effectively supported the marine administrative authorities in implementing supervision and management in accordance with the law and effectively protecting the marine ecological environment by playing an administrative and judicial role. The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China clearly proposed to improve the natural resource supervision system and implement restrictive measures for areas with overloaded marine resources. The sea area belongs to the state, and no unit or individual shall occupy, trade, or illegally transfer the sea area in any other form without obtaining the sea area use right certificate issued by the competent authority in accordance with the law. Otherwise, they shall be punished accordingly. In this case, although Haifeng County Government signed a contract with Haili Company to allow them to use the involved sea area, in accordance with relevant regulations such as the Sea Area Law, the company still needs to apply to the marine administrative department at or above the county level where the project is located in accordance with the law, and report to the approval authority level by level according to Article 11 of the Guangdong Provincial Regulations on the Use and Management of Sea Areas. The marine administrative department at the same level as the approval authority shall issue a sea area use certificate. The handling of this case has positive exemplary significance for clarifying the legal powers of local governments and marine administrative authorities, and for relevant administrative law enforcement and judicial practice.

4、 Lu Hong and 204 others v. Hangzhou Xiaoshan District Environmental Protection Bureau Environmental Protection Administrative License Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Hangzhou Xiaoshan Urban Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Investment Company", the third party in the original review) entrusted Zhejiang Industrial Environmental Protection Design and Research Institute Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Provincial Environmental Protection Design Institute") to conduct an environmental impact assessment of the project due to the needs of the renovation of the involved Fengqing Avenue and the construction of the South Extension Project. During the preparation process of the environmental impact assessment report, the urban investment company made two public announcements on the basic situation of the project and its potential impact on the surrounding environment, countermeasures and measures to prevent or reduce adverse environmental impacts, and key points of environmental impact assessment conclusions in the construction project area. The Provincial Environmental Protection Design Institute conducted a public survey by distributing individual and group questionnaires. On April 20, 2012, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou City (hereinafter referred to as the District Environmental Protection Bureau), together with the Urban Investment Corporation, the Provincial Environmental Protection Design Institute, and invited experts, held a technical review meeting for the environmental impact report of the involved project and formed review opinions. On April 23 of the same year, the District Environmental Protection Bureau posted the "Environmental Approval Publicity" for the project in question in the public notice column of the District Service Center Hall. The public announcement period is from April 23, 2012 to May 7 of the same year, totaling 10 working days. The main content of the announcement is: basic information of the project involved; The potential impact of the project on the environment; Countermeasures and measures to prevent or mitigate adverse environmental impacts; Key points of environmental impact assessment conclusion; The contact information of the construction unit, environmental impact assessment unit, and approval unit, and indicate that the methods for soliciting opinions are phone calls and letters. On May 29, 2012, the District Environmental Protection Bureau, together with the Urban Investment Company, the Provincial Environmental Protection Design Institute, and invited experts, held a technical review and evaluation meeting for the environmental impact assessment report (review draft) and formed a review opinion. In June 2012, the Provincial Environmental Protection Design Institute submitted a draft of the environmental impact assessment report for review. On June 28 of the same year, the urban investment company submitted the environmental impact assessment report and related application materials to the district environmental protection bureau, applying for approval of the environmental impact assessment report. On the same day, the District Environmental Protection Bureau issued a letter on the review opinions on the environmental impact report of the Fengqing Avenue renovation and South Extension (Jincheng Road Xianghu Road) project (hereinafter referred to as the "Review Opinion Letter"), agreeing to implement the project within the area permitted by the Xiaoshan Planning.

Lu Hong and 204 others claimed to be residents of the "Zurich Town" and "Orlando Town" communities in the Xianghu section of the Fengqing Avenue in Xiaoshan District. Due to dissatisfaction with the feasibility study report of the "Fengqing Avenue Renovation and South Extension (Jincheng Road Xianghu Road) Project" approved by the Xiaoshan District Development and Reform Bureau, administrative reconsideration has been filed with the Hangzhou Development and Reform Commission. During the review period, the Development and Reform Bureau of Xiaoshan District provided the "Review Opinion Letter" from the District Environmental Protection Bureau as its approval basis. The 204 people believed that the construction of the project involved in the case would have adverse effects on the two communities, and the administrative licensing behavior of the district environmental protection bureau infringed on their legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, they sued the bureau as the defendant and requested the court to revoke the above-mentioned "Review Opinion Letter".

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou City held in the first instance that, according to Article 22 of the "Zhejiang Province Construction Project Environmental Protection Management Measures" (hereinafter referred to as the "Measures"), after accepting the application for approval of environmental impact reports, in addition to the construction projects that need to be kept confidential according to law, the environmental protection administrative agency still needs to publicly disclose the acceptance information, the query methods for environmental impact reports, and the rights enjoyed by the public in a way that is convenient for the public to know, And solicit public opinions, and the deadline for soliciting public opinions shall not be less than 7 days. In this case, the environmental protection bureau of the defendant district stated that on April 23, 2012, it accepted the application for approval from a third-party urban construction company regarding the environmental impact assessment report. The environmental impact assessment report (draft for approval) prepared by the evaluation unit, Provincial Environmental Protection Design Institute, was commissioned by the third party to apply for the defendant's approval in June 2013. Therefore, even if the defendant did accept the application of a third party on April 23, 2012, as the environmental impact assessment report (draft for approval) that needs to be approved has not yet been prepared, the defendant's claimed acceptance behavior is also illegal. The defendant clearly stated in the Acceptance Notice of Commitment that the time when a third party applied for environmental impact assessment approval was June 28, 2012. On the same day, the defendant issued the defendant's "Review Opinion Letter" approving the environmental impact assessment report involved in the case, which clearly violated the relevant provisions of Article 212 of the Measures regarding the public disclosure and public investigation of the environmental impact assessment approval administrative authority in the approval process, and seriously violated legal procedures. Based on this, the judgment revokes the specific administrative action of the defendant in making the "Examination Opinion Letter". After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the basic premise for the environmental protection agency to accept the application for approval of the environmental impact report is that the report has been officially formed, and the environmental protection agency should follow the procedure of publicly disclosing the report and soliciting public opinions in accordance with the law before approval can be granted. The people's court shall strictly examine whether the administrative act has complied with legal and due process, and whether it fully respects the parties' right to information and expression. If it believes that the administrative act has procedural illegality or obvious impropriety, it has the right to confirm the illegality or revoke it. In recent years, some local governments and administrative agencies, in order to accelerate the process of urbanization, have spared no effort to violate administrative procedures and approve certain construction projects beyond the norm. Some have even sacrificed the environmental rights and interests of the people, causing adverse social impacts. Only by strictly following the law and regulations, and following procedures, can we truly promote the improvement of urban environment and social harmony and tranquility. In this case, there were obvious procedural violations by the district environmental protection bureau, and the time it claimed to accept the application for approval of the environmental impact assessment report submitted by the urban investment company has not yet formed a formal approval draft; The "Environmental Approval Publicity" published during the preparation of the environmental impact assessment report cannot replace the procedures and obligations required by the "Measures" for environmental protection agencies to publicly disclose and conduct public investigations on the environmental impact report after the applicant formally submits the environmental impact assessment report and related application materials. The court, based on the serious illegality of its procedures, decided to revoke the sued administrative act, which has a good demonstration effect on demonstrating procedural fairness and promoting administrative agencies to administer according to law.

5、 Junning Machinery Factory v. Environmental Protection Administration Punishment Case of Jin'an District Environmental Protection Bureau in Lu'an City

（1） Basic facts of the case

Junning Machinery Factory (hereinafter referred to as Junning Machinery Factory) in Jin'an District, Lu'an City, Anhui Province rented a house in the family area of Guanghua Factory in Lu'an on April 11, 2012, installed mechanical equipment, and engaged in the manufacturing of cast iron metal parts and metal product processing. However, the environmental impact assessment documents for the construction project were not approved in accordance with the law. During the production process, the factory uses emulsion to lubricate and cool the workpieces, resulting in wastewater, solid waste, and noise generation. However, apart from simply stacking and collecting solid waste, the factory has not treated any other pollution and has not built relevant environmental protection facilities. The residents of the residential area where the factory is located have repeatedly petitioned and reported that the noise and other pollution it produces seriously affect the normal life of the people. On August 5, 2012, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Jin'an District, Lu'an City (hereinafter referred to as the District Environmental Protection Bureau), through on-site inspection, investigation and evidence collection, and collective discussion, issued an administrative penalty decision and a deadline for completion of the environmental assessment procedures, ordering Junning Machinery Factory to stop production and complete the environmental assessment procedures within a specified period, and fined 50000 yuan. The factory is not satisfied with this and applies for administrative reconsideration. After reconsideration by the district people's government, it has decided to maintain the above two decisions. The factory still refuses to accept and filed an administrative lawsuit with the district environmental protection bureau as the defendant, requesting the court to revoke the aforementioned two decisions.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Jin'an District, Lu'an City held in the first instance that the plaintiff in this case, Junning Machinery Factory, engaged in mechanical processing and production in residential areas, resulting in pollutants such as wastewater, solid waste, and noise, which had a certain impact on the surrounding environment and residents' lives. Environmental impact assessment procedures should be completed in accordance with the law and environmental protection facilities should be constructed before it can be officially put into production. However, the plaintiff engaged in mechanical processing production without completing the environmental impact assessment procedures and constructing supporting environmental protection facilities, which clearly violated the above legal provisions. The environmental protection bureau of the defendant's district made an administrative penalty decision and a decision to make up for it within a prescribed time limit in accordance with the law, which meets the legal requirements and should be supported in accordance with the law. Therefore, the original lawsuit request was rejected.

After the appeal of Junning Machinery Factory, the Intermediate People's Court of Lu'an City held in the second instance that the appellant Junning Machinery Factory, as an individual industrial and commercial household, had its business scope approved and registered as "mechanical processing" by the industrial and commercial department. The "Classification and Management Catalogue for Environmental Impact Assessment of Construction Projects" issued by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China in 2008 clearly includes mechanical processing within the scope of environmental impact assessment management. Therefore, the appellant should first complete the environmental impact assessment procedures before production. The District Environmental Protection Bureau, based on the report, found that the appellant had not completed the environmental impact assessment procedures during the investigation and prosecution of environmental pollution. In accordance with relevant laws and regulations, after fulfilling the legal procedures, it made a decision to order the appellant to complete the environmental impact assessment procedures within a specified time limit in accordance with the law, which was not inappropriate. The appellant did indeed experience emission pollution during the processing and production process, and did not build environmental protection facilities, which had a certain impact on the surrounding environment. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulations on Environmental Protection Management of Construction Projects", the appellant ordered him to stop production and imposed a fine of 50000 yuan, which is legally valid. The second instance decision rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court, through judicial review, supports the legal treatment decisions made by environmental protection agencies against wastewater, solid waste, and noise emission enterprises, effectively safeguarding the environmental rights and interests of the people. In this case, the enterprise involved is engaged in an industry that requires environmental impact assessment procedures, but without obtaining any environmental impact assessment procedures, engages in metal processing and manufacturing in residential areas without authorization. The noise and pollutants generated during its production process have a certain impact on the living and learning of surrounding residents. Therefore, the environmental protection department shall impose administrative penalties on them in accordance with the law and require them to rectify within a specified period of time, in order to maintain a good living environment for citizens through legal and legitimate administrative law enforcement. The people's court shall support them in accordance with the law.

6、 Su Yaohua v. Announcement of the People's Government of Boluo County, Guangdong Province on Delimitation of the Scope of Prohibited Breeding Areas

（1） Basic facts of the case

At the end of 2006, Su Yaohua signed a "Land Contract" with the Agricultural Science and Technology Demonstration Farm in Boluo County, Guangdong Province. He operated a breeding farm and raised pig seedlings on the involved land, and successively obtained a "Tax Registration Certificate", a "Pollutant Discharge Permit", and a "Business License for Individual Industrial and Commercial Households". On March 22, 2012, the People's Government of Boluo County issued a notice on the inclusion of the Luofu Mountain National Modern Agricultural Science and Technology Demonstration Park in the prohibited breeding area (hereinafter referred to as the "notice"), requiring existing livestock and poultry farms (points) in the prohibited breeding area to relocate or clean up before June 30 of that year. Violators will be dealt with in accordance with relevant laws and regulations until they are closed.

Afterwards, both the Environmental Protection Bureau and the Animal Husbandry Bureau of Boluo County refused to pass the annual review of the pollution discharge permit and animal epidemic prevention certificate of the breeding farm based on the "Notice"; The County Land and Resources Bureau requires the breeding farm to close and demolish the livestock and poultry breeding houses on its own and restore the land to its original state, citing the failure of the farm to apply for land use procedures in accordance with regulations and the unauthorized construction of livestock and poultry breeding houses without the approval of the county people's government; The County Housing and Urban Rural Development Bureau has issued an "Administrative Penalty Notice" to the breeding farm, proposing to impose a deadline for demolition on the grounds that the buildings of the breeding farm have not obtained a construction project planning permit. Su Yaohua is not satisfied with the above-mentioned "Notice" made by the county people's government and has filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the court to make a judgment to revoke the "Notice".

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Huizhou City held in the first instance that according to the relevant provisions of the Guangdong Provincial Environmental Protection Regulations and the Animal Husbandry Law of the People's Republic of China, the defendant Boluo County People's Government has the right to designate the Luofu Mountain National Modern Agricultural Science and Technology Demonstration Park under its jurisdiction as a livestock and poultry breeding prohibition zone. The county government has notified and delivered the "Notice" to the relevant livestock farmers, and the "Notice" clearly informs the parties of their obligations to be fulfilled. The defendant's designation of a livestock and poultry prohibition zone fully complies with legal regulations, and therefore the judgment is upheld in accordance with the "Notice".

After Su Yaohua's appeal, the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court held in the second instance that the Luofushan National Modern Agricultural Science and Technology Demonstration Park bears the task of promoting agricultural science and technology and requires strict environmental protection conditions. The river near the Science and Technology Demonstration Park is connected to the local drinking water source, and livestock and poultry breeding in the Science and Technology Demonstration Park may cause air and water pollution. The People's Government of Boluo County has the right to designate the Luofu Mountain National Modern Agricultural Science and Technology Demonstration Park under its jurisdiction as a livestock and poultry breeding prohibition zone in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Livestock Law, the Measures for the Prevention and Control of Pollution from Livestock and Poultry Breeding, and the Guangdong Provincial Environmental Protection Regulations, in accordance with the needs of environmental protection. Based on this, the second instance judgment upheld the original judgment and dismissed the appeal.

However, the second instance court also held that Su Yaohua's operation of the breeding farm occurred before the issuance of the "Notice" and had already obtained the "Tax Registration Certificate", "Pollutant Discharge Permit", and "Individual Industrial and Commercial Business License" in accordance with the law. His legitimate business behavior should be protected by law. According to Article 8 of the Administrative Licensing Law, although the People's Government of Boluo County has the right to designate livestock and poultry breeding zones in accordance with the public interest of environmental protection, it should also compensate Su Yaohua for the losses suffered as a result in accordance with the law. The county people's government issued a notice requiring the farms to relocate or clean up on their own, which did not involve any compensation for Su Yaohua. It is obviously inappropriate. The basis for administrative penalties and non annual reviews imposed by departments such as environmental protection, national land, and housing construction on Su Yaohua and his breeding farm is the "Notice". The county government cannot deny Su Yaohua's legitimate business behavior on this grounds. Su Yaohua may submit a separate application for administrative compensation in accordance with Article 14 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Licensing Cases".

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court not only maintains the environmental protection supervision behavior of administrative organs, but also pays attention to the balance of interests, which better interprets the principle of trust protection in environmental administrative management activities. Although the people's governments at or above the county level have the right to designate livestock and poultry breeding zones according to the needs of environmental protection, it is strictly prohibited to engage in livestock and poultry breeding within the zones. They can also require existing livestock and poultry breeding farms (points) to relocate or clean up on their own, that is, change or withdraw the production and operation permits of farmers. However, at the same time, consideration should also be given to the issue of protecting the interests of livestock and poultry farmers who have lawfully operated before this. In accordance with the spirit of the principle of trust protection reflected in Article 8 of the Administrative Licensing Law, compensation should be given to legitimate farmers who have suffered losses due to changes or withdrawals of administrative licenses due to environmental public interests. In environmental administrative management activities, the government and environmental protection departments need to pay attention to the balance between public and private interests, and cannot only consider the needs of environmental protection and ignore the trust interests of legitimate operators. Especially, it is necessary to prevent the phenomenon of intentionally seeking various reasons to identify legitimate production and business activities as "illegal" in order to evade compensation responsibilities. Due to the plaintiff's failure to file a lawsuit for administrative compensation in this case, the second instance court, while maintaining the defendant's "Notice", clearly pointed out that the defendant did not handle the compensation matter, and even refused compensation on the grounds of the plaintiff's illegal behavior "afterwards", which was clearly inappropriate. The court also informed the plaintiff of the legal remedies available for filing a separate compensation application and that the handling was appropriate.

7、 Quanzhou Hongsheng Stone Industry Co., Ltd. v. Environmental Protection Administration of Jinjiang Environmental Protection Bureau

（1） Basic facts of the case

On July 5, 2012, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Jinjiang City, Fujian Province (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau) conducted an on-site inspection and found that Quanzhou Hongsheng Stone Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hongsheng Company) had water pollution prevention and control facilities that needed to be constructed during the stone processing and production process, and had not been inspected (qualified) by the environmental protection regulatory department before being put into production. Therefore, on July 20 of the same year, an administrative penalty decision was made, Order the company to stop production and impose a fine of RMB 60000. Hongsheng Company believes that the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau has issued a "Temporary Permit for Pollutant Discharge" to it, clarifying that the sewage discharge of its construction project has reached zero discharge standards, meets the requirements of project environmental protection, and should be considered as qualified for acceptance. Therefore, it applies for administrative reconsideration. After reconsideration, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Quanzhou City has decided to maintain the above administrative penalty decision. Hongsheng Company still refuses to accept and files an administrative lawsuit with the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau as the defendant, requesting the court to revoke the administrative penalty decision.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Jinjiang City held in the first instance that the plaintiff, Hongsheng Company, as a stone processing enterprise, inevitably produces pollutants such as sewage during the production process. Water pollution prevention and control facilities must be built and inspected to be qualified before they can be put into operation. The defendant city's environmental protection bureau issued a "Temporary Permit for Pollutant Discharge" to it, allowing it to temporarily discharge pollutants, which cannot be regarded as the plaintiff's water pollution prevention and control facilities passing the acceptance, and cannot exempt it from the obligation of the water pollution prevention and control facilities to be put into operation after passing the acceptance by the environmental protection regulatory department. The plaintiff continues production even though the Temporary Permit for Pollutant Discharge has expired, and the water pollution prevention and control facilities have not yet passed the acceptance inspection of the environmental protection department. Its behavior does not fall under the non punishment situation stipulated in Article 29 of the Administrative Penalty Law, and the illegal behavior is in a continuous state. The prosecution effect of the administrative penalty shall be calculated from the day when the illegal behavior ends. Before making the administrative penalty, the defendant had already made an "Administrative Penalty Notice" in accordance with the law and served it on the plaintiff, informing them of their rights. Therefore, the judgment upheld the administrative penalty decision made by the defendant. After Hongsheng Company appealed, the Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment on the same grounds.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court further clarified through the judgment that the issuance of the "Temporary Permit for Pollutant Discharge" by the environmental protection agency cannot be considered as a qualified acceptance of water pollution prevention and control facilities. Pollutant discharge enterprises that generate pollutants such as sewage must construct water pollution prevention and control facilities in accordance with the law and pass the acceptance by the environmental protection agency before they can be put into production. Otherwise, the environmental protection agency has the right to punish illegal pollutant discharge enterprises in accordance with the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law and local regulations and other normative documents. In this case, Hongsheng Company argues that the reason why the "Temporary Permit for Pollutant Discharge" obtained should be deemed as qualified acceptance of water pollution prevention and control facilities cannot be established. At the same time, there is a situation where the "Temporary Permit for Pollutant Discharge" has expired and production continues, and the permit allows it to discharge pollutants that do not include wastewater. The court is correct in supporting the administrative penalties of stopping production and imposing fines on it. In addition, in terms of legal application, this case clarifies that the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law should be applied to the discharge of wastewater based on the types of pollutants, while the Solid Waste Pollution Prevention and Control Law should be applied to the discharge of "liquid waste". This has practical significance in directly guiding environmental protection agencies in administrative law enforcement and people's courts in handling relevant cases.

8、 Mengdachi Automotive Systems (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd. v. Suzhou Industrial Park Environmental Protection Bureau Environmental Protection Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The Environmental Protection Bureau of Suzhou Industrial Park in Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as the Environmental Protection Bureau of the Park) has continuously received complaints from residents of Tinglan Jiayuan Community about the odor generated by surrounding enterprises affecting normal life and health. Starting from September 2013, it has been conducting a centralized investigation and rectification of the exhaust emissions of surrounding enterprises in the community, 58 enterprises, including Mengdachi Automotive Systems (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mengdachi Company), were designated as inspection targets. On September 30 of the same year, law enforcement personnel from the Environmental Protection Bureau of the park, together with law enforcement personnel from the Suzhou Environmental Supervision Detachment, went to Mengdachi Company for law enforcement inspection. The company's security guard refused to allow law enforcement personnel to enter the site for inspection on the grounds of not making a visit appointment. The law enforcement personnel immediately called 110 for help. At the request of the police and law enforcement personnel, the security guard contacted the company's environmental protection officer by phone and still refused to allow the law enforcement personnel to enter the scene for inspection on the grounds of not making an appointment. The law enforcement personnel of the Environmental Protection Bureau in the park believed that the best opportunity for inspection was lost due to obstruction, so they did not forcibly enter the site for inspection. On December 6, 2013, the Environmental Protection Bureau of the park mailed the "Administrative Penalty Prior Notice" to the company. Within the specified time limit, the company did not submit any defense opinions to the park environmental protection bureau. On December 20 of the same year, the Environmental Protection Bureau of the park made an administrative penalty decision, determining that on September 30, 2013, when the Environmental Protection Bureau of the park conducted a special on-site inspection of Mengdachi Company's exhaust emission enterprises in accordance with the law, the company refused to enter and carry out the inspection, In violation of the provisions of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution, which stipulate that the administrative department in charge of environmental protection and other supervisory and management departments have the right to conduct on-site inspections of pollutant discharge units within their jurisdiction, and the inspected units must truthfully report the situation and provide necessary information, a fine of RMB 40000 shall be imposed on the company in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Administrative Penalty Law and the Law on the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution. Mengdachi Company is not satisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the court to revoke the administrative penalty decision.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Gusu District, Suzhou City held in the first instance that the implementation of environmental protection law enforcement inspections by national environmental protection administrative agencies in accordance with the law is a power and responsibility conferred on law enforcement agencies by law. The internal management regulations of the plaintiff, Mengdachi Company, cannot compete with mandatory national legal provisions. The plaintiff obstructed or refused to carry out administrative law enforcement actions in accordance with the company's management regulations, and even though the public security police intervened on site, they still refused to inspect. Their behavior has constituted a refusal to conduct law enforcement inspections. According to the relevant provisions of the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Law, if the environmental protection administrative department or other supervisory and management departments refuse to conduct on-site inspections, the environmental protection administrative department or the supervisory and management departments prescribed by law may, based on different circumstances, order the cessation of the illegal act, make corrections within a time limit, give a warning or impose a fine of not more than 50000 yuan. The plaintiff refuses the defendant's law enforcement inspection without justifiable reasons, and fails to take timely remedial measures afterwards The subjective fault of corrective measures is significant. The fine imposed by the defendant on the plaintiff is within the statutory penalty range and is not inappropriate. Therefore, the judgment rejects the plaintiff's lawsuit request. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in the fact that the people's court has effectively safeguarded the legal inspection power and administrative law enforcement authority of environmental protection agencies through administrative trials. The judgment results are a meaningful warning and education for both the punished enterprises and other related pollution discharge enterprises. On site inspection is an important procedure and means for the environmental protection administrative department to collect evidence and stop illegal acts of environmental pollution. The behavior of the inspected unit refusing the on-site inspection by the environmental protection administrative department should be punished in accordance with the law.

9、 Xia Chunguan and Four Others v. Dongtai Environmental Protection Bureau Environmental Assessment Administrative License Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Xia Chunguan and four others are residents of Building 19, Jingfanxin Village, Dongtai Town, Dongtai City, Jiangsu Province. Their residence is adjacent to the Four Seasons Splendor Bathing Square (the third person in the original trial). The Four Seasons Splendor Bathing Plaza is a newly built bathing service project that leased business premises in the involved area as a business site. The project investment is 2.5 million yuan, including an environmental investment of 250000 yuan. The construction project was reported to the Dongtai Town People's Government of Dongtai City for approval on February 25, 2013, and the "Environmental Impact Declaration (Registration) Form for Construction Projects" was submitted to the Dongtai Environmental Protection Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau) on March 12, 2013, According to the opinions of the bureau regarding the need to entrust qualified environmental impact assessment units to prepare environmental impact report forms, Dongtai Environmental Science Research Institute is entrusted to prepare relevant report forms, which are then submitted to the bureau for approval. On April 1, 2013, the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau issued the "Approval Opinion on the Environmental Impact Report Form of the Four Seasons Splendor Bathing Plaza Bathing Service Project in Dongtai Town, Dongtai City" (hereinafter referred to as the "Approval Opinion"), agreeing to build a new bathing service project between Building 17 and Building 19 in Jingfan New Village, and to treat the waste and sewage generated during the operation of the project Specific requirements have been put forward for the impact of boundary noise on the quality of adjacent acoustic environments and the disposal of various types of solid waste. Xia Chunguan and four others believe that the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau made the "Approval Opinion" without holding a symposium, argumentation meeting, or soliciting public opinion, which violated their legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, they filed an administrative lawsuit and requested the court to revoke the "Approval Opinion".

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Dongtai City, Jiangsu Province held in the first instance that the defendant city's Environmental Protection Bureau has the authority to approve the environmental impact report form of construction projects in its jurisdiction. Article 47 of the Administrative Licensing Law stipulates that "if an administrative licensing directly involves a significant interest relationship between the applicant and others, the administrative organ shall inform the applicant and interested parties of the right to request a hearing before making the administrative licensing decision, It should not be excluded from "significant interest relationships". The residence of the plaintiff Xia Chunguan and four others in this case is adjacent to the third party's Four Seasons Splendor Bathing Square. The possibility of significant impact on the plaintiff's life cannot be ruled out due to the humidity, heat, and noise pollution generated after the newly built bathing project by a third party is put into operation. Before making the "Approval Opinion", the defendant should inform the four plaintiffs that they have the right to a hearing. Without informing them, they immediately made the "Approval Opinion", which violates legal procedures. Therefore, the judgment revokes the "Approval Opinion".

After the appeal of Four Seasons Splendor Bathing Square, the Yancheng Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that Article 22 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Law clearly stipulates the approval department, approval authority, and approval decision time limit for environmental impact assessment documents of construction projects, and does not specify the specific procedures for administrative licensing by the approval department. However, the Administrative Licensing Law sets clear requirements for the establishment and implementation procedures of administrative licensing. The sued administrative act in this case belongs to an administrative licensing act involving environmental impact assessment of construction projects, and should be approved in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the Administrative Licensing Law. As stakeholders directly adjacent to the approved project in this case, Xia Chunguan and four other families should be identified as having significant interests in the approved project. When reviewing and making administrative permits related to people's rights and interests, environmental protection agencies should inform Xia Chunguan and others of their rights to make statements, defend themselves, and hear their opinions. The original trial court found that the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau had not fulfilled its obligation to inform the hearing and violated the legal procedures without any impropriety. Therefore, the court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court, through strict and prudent examination, analyzed Article 47 of the Administrative Licensing Law on whether there is a "significant interest relationship" and the application conditions of the hearing procedure, and ultimately revoked the sued administrative action made by the environmental protection agency, safeguarding citizens' rights to know, to be heard, to speak, to defend, and to hear in the field of environmental management, greatly demonstrating procedural and judicial justice. This case, as a typical environmental protection administrative licensing case that embodies the principle of public participation, is also a livelihood case closely related to the interests of the people. The court of second instance revoked the approval opinion made by the environmental protection agency on the grounds that the bathing project approved by the environmental protection agency had a significant interest relationship with neighboring people and did not inform them of the right to state, defend, and hear in violation of legal procedures. This effectively safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of neighboring people, It has also strengthened judicial supervision of administrative power, guided and standardized similar approval behaviors of environmental protection agencies, promoted public participation in decision-making and supervision of environmental administrative licensing, and improved procedural awareness of administrative approval, which is of great significance.

10、 The Main Body Garden Industry Committee and Qianyang Jiayuan Industry Committee sued the Shanghai Environmental Protection Bureau for not accepting the approval decision of the environmental impact assessment report

（1） Basic facts of the case

On May 14, 2012, the Shanghai Municipal Planning and Land Resources Management Bureau issued the "Construction Project Site Selection Opinions" to the State Grid Shanghai Electric Power Company (hereinafter referred to as the Power Company) for the 500kV Hongyang Transmission and Transformation Project, clarifying the location of the project land. The plaintiff in the first instance, the main body garden (Phase II) community and Qianyang Jiayuan community are adjacent to the Hongyang substation site. On June 25th of the same year, the Shanghai Environmental Protection Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau) accepted the application for approval of the "Environmental Impact Report of the 500kV Hongyang Transmission and Transformation Project" (hereinafter referred to as the "Environmental Impact Assessment Report") submitted by the power company, and publicly announced the acceptance information online. On the same day, the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau commissioned the Shanghai Institute of Environmental Sciences to conduct a technical evaluation of the environmental impact assessment documents for the project. On July 5th of the same year, the Shanghai Institute of Environmental Sciences issued a technical evaluation report to the defendant, believing that the Environmental Assessment Report met relevant environmental protection technical standards and the evaluation conclusion was generally credible. On July 17 of the same year, the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau organized an expert consultation meeting, and the attending experts believed that the explanation and handling of issues reported by the public by the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau met relevant regulations; The impact of the Hongyang power transmission and transformation project on the surrounding environment meets relevant environmental standards, and the project will not affect the significant environmental interests of the surrounding residents. On August 6th of the same year, the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau reviewed and found that the "Environmental Impact Assessment Report" submitted by the power company met relevant requirements, and proposed to make an approval decision. Therefore, the proposed approval status of the project was announced on the "Shanghai Environmental Network". On October 22 of the same year, the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau issued the "Approval Opinions on the Environmental Impact Report of the 500kV Hongyang Transmission and Transformation Project" and agreed to the project construction. The owners' committee of Wenwen Garden (Phase II) in Yangpu District, Shanghai and the owners' committee of Qianyang Jiayuan believed that the construction of a high-voltage substation project should not be built near residential areas. The defendant did not consider the actual impact of the construction project on residents and made the approval, which was illegal. They applied for administrative reconsideration to the Ministry of Environmental Protection, and after the reconsideration authority upheld the approval decision, they filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai.

（2） Judgment results

The court of first instance held that after accepting the application of the power company, the defendant made a public announcement of the relevant situation, entrusted relevant units to conduct a technical evaluation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, and organized an expert consultation meeting. After reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, Technical Assessment Report, and other documents, the defendant made an environmental impact assessment approval decision and fulfilled the legal procedures. However, the approval time exceeded the time specified by regulations, which is a procedural flaw. The preparation unit of the "Environmental Impact Assessment Report" has corresponding qualifications. The "Environmental Impact Assessment Report" evaluates various environmental indicators of the involved construction project based on relevant preparation standards, and draws environmental impact assessment conclusions based on this, which comply with the requirements of environmental impact assessment technical specifications and legal regulations.

The plaintiff argued in the lawsuit that expert consultation meetings should not be used as a substitute for public participation in hearings, argumentation meetings, and symposiums during the defendant's approval process. Public participation in the preparation of the environmental impact assessment report by the power company did not meet legal requirements. The court believes that the defendant's public participation in the approval process of environmental impact assessment documents was supported by evidence such as expert consultation opinions and online public information. According to the Interim Measures for Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment, the environmental protection department can carry out public participation in the approval process of environmental impact assessment by consulting expert opinions. Therefore, the defendant's public participation activities are not inconsistent with the law. For the issue of public participation in the environmental impact assessment process, the "Environmental Impact Assessment Report" clearly records the distribution and distribution of 180 survey questionnaires, as well as public participation information disclosure, and provides explanations on whether public opinions are adopted or not. Therefore, the development of public participation activities during the preparation of environmental impact assessment documents meets the requirements of laws and regulations. Based on this, the first instance judgment rejected the original lawsuit request. After the plaintiff appealed, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that judicial review of public participation procedures is an important link in environmental protection administrative cases. Public participation is the fundamental way to realize people's rights, an important manifestation of the important status of the people, and an important guarantee for democratic and scientific decision-making. Especially since environmental protection issues are closely related to people's lives, it is necessary to strengthen supervision of public participation. In order to promote and regulate public participation in environmental impact assessment activities, the State Environmental Protection Administration has issued the "Interim Measures for Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment", which clearly stipulates the form and content of public participation. The review and approval of environmental impact assessment reports by the people's court shall be conducted strictly in accordance with relevant regulations. The first and second instance courts of this case have made public participation a key focus of their review, with clear trial ideas and guiding principles. The judgments and handling made comply with legal provisions.