目录

一、北京市朝阳区自然之友环境研究所、福建省绿家园环境友好中心诉谢知锦等四人破坏林地民事公益诉讼案

二、中华环保联合会诉德州晶华集团振华有限公司大气污染民事公益诉讼案

三、常州市环境公益协会诉储卫清、常州博世尔物资再生利用有限公司等土壤污染民事公益诉讼案

四、曲忠全诉山东富海实业股份有限公司大气污染责任纠纷案

五、沈海俊诉机械工业第一设计研究院噪声污染责任纠纷案

六、袁科威诉广州嘉富房地产发展有限公司噪声污染责任纠纷案

七、梁兆南诉华润水泥（上思）有限公司水污染责任纠纷案

八、周航诉荆门市明祥物流有限公司、重庆铁发遂渝高速公路有限公司水污染责任纠纷案

九、吴国金诉中铁五局（集团）有限公司、中铁五局集团路桥工程有限责任公司噪声污染责任纠纷案

十、李才能诉海南海石实业有限公司粉尘污染责任纠纷案

案例1、北京市朝阳区自然之友环境研究所、福建省绿家园环境友好中心诉谢知锦等四人破坏林地民事公益诉讼案

【基本案情】

2008年7月29日，谢知锦等四人未经行政主管部门审批，擅自扩大采矿范围，采取从山顶往下剥山皮、将采矿产生的弃石往山下倾倒、在矿山塘口下方兴建工棚的方式，严重毁坏了28.33亩林地植被。2014年7月28日，谢知锦等人因犯非法占用农用地罪分别被判处刑罚。2015年1月1日，北京市朝阳区自然之友环境研究所（以下简称自然之友）、福建省绿家园环境友好中心（以下简称绿家园）提起诉讼，请求判令四被告承担在一定期限内恢复林地植被的责任，赔偿生态环境服务功能损失134万元；如不能在一定期限内恢复林地植被，则应赔偿生态环境修复费用110万余元；共同偿付原告为诉讼支出的评估费、律师费及其他合理费用。

【裁判结果】

福建省南平市中级人民法院一审认为，谢知锦等四人为采矿占用林地，不仅严重破坏了28.33亩林地的原有植被，还造成了林地植被受损至恢复原状期间生态服务功能的损失，依法应共同承担恢复林地植被、赔偿生态功能损失的侵权责任。遂判令谢知锦等四人在判决生效之日起五个月内恢复被破坏的28.33亩林地功能，在该林地上补种林木并抚育管护三年，如不能在指定期限内恢复林地植被，则共同赔偿生态环境修复费用110万余元；共同赔偿生态环境服务功能损失127万元，用于原地或异地生态修复；共同支付原告支出的评估费、律师费、为诉讼支出的其他合理费用16.5万余元。福建省高级人民法院二审维持了一审判决。

【典型意义】

本案系新环境保护法实施后全国首例环境民事公益诉讼，涉及原告主体资格的审查、环境修复责任的承担以及生态环境服务功能损失的赔偿等问题。本案判决依照环境保护法第五十八条和《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》的规定，确认了自然之友、绿家园作为公益诉讼原告的主体资格；以生态环境修复为着眼点，判令被告限期恢复被破坏林地功能，在该林地上补种林木并抚育管护三年，进而实现尽快恢复林地植被、修复生态环境的目的；首次通过判决明确支持了生态环境受到损害至恢复原状期间服务功能损失的赔偿请求，提高了破坏生态行为的违法成本，体现了保护生态环境的价值理念，判决具有很好的评价、指引和示范作用。

案例2、中华环保联合会诉德州晶华集团振华有限公司大气污染民事公益诉讼案

【基本案情】

德州晶华集团振华有限公司（以下简称振华公司）是一家从事玻璃及玻璃深加工产品制造的企业，位于山东省德州市区内。振华公司虽投入资金建设脱硫除尘设施，但仍有两个烟囱长期超标排放污染物，造成大气污染，严重影响了周围居民生活。2014年，振华公司被环境保护部点名批评，并被山东省环境保护行政主管部门多次处罚，但其仍持续超标向大气排放污染物。2015年3月25日，中华环保联合会提起诉讼，请求判令振华公司立即停止超标向大气排放污染物，增设大气污染防治设施，经环境保护行政主管部门验收合格并投入使用后方可进行生产经营活动；赔偿因超标排放污染物造成的损失2040万元及因拒不改正超标排放污染物行为造成的损失780万元，并将赔偿款项支付至地方政府财政专户，用于德州市大气污染的治理；在省级及以上媒体向社会公开赔礼道歉；承担本案诉讼、检验、鉴定、专家证人、律师及其他为诉讼支出的费用。

山东省德州市中级人民法院受理本案后，向振华公司送达民事起诉状等诉讼材料，向社会公告案件受理情况，并向德州市环境保护局告知本案受理情况。德州市人民政府、德州市环境保护局积极支持、配合本案审理，并与一审法院共同召开协调会。通过司法机关与环境保护行政主管部门的联动、协调，振华公司将全部生产线关停，在远离居民生活区的天衢工业园区选址建设新厂，启动老厂区搬迁工作。2015年9月21日，法院组织原、被告双方质证，就相关证据材料、被告整改情况等问题见面沟通、交换意见。本案尚在审理之中。

【典型意义】

环境公益诉讼案件的审理，要依法协调环境保护与经济发展的关系，支持政府部门行使环境治理与生态修复职责，督促企业在承担环境保护义务与责任基础上更好的经营发展。本案是新环境保护法实施后人民法院受理的首例针对大气污染提起的环境民事公益诉讼。法院立案受理后，按照《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》和《最高人民法院、民政部、环境保护部关于贯彻实施环境民事公益诉讼制度的通知》的要求，及时与政府部门沟通，发挥司法与行政执法协调联动作用，促使被告及时停止污染行为，主动关停生产线，积极整改，重新选址，搬离市区，防止了污染及损害的进一步扩大，促进振华公司向节能环保型企业转型发展。本案虽然尚未审结，但上述做法符合环境公益诉讼案件的审理原则和工作要求，所取得的阶段性审理成效值得肯定。

案例3、常州市环境公益协会诉储卫清、常州博世尔物资再生利用有限公司等土壤污染民事公益诉讼案

【基本案情】

2012年9月1日至2013年12月11日，储卫清经常州市博世尔物资再生利用有限公司（以下简称博世尔公司）同意，使用该公司场地及设备，从事“含油滤渣”的处置经营活动。其间，无锡金科化工有限公司（以下简称金科公司）明知储卫清不具备处置危险废物的资质，允许其使用危险废物经营许可证并以该公司名义从无锡翔悦石油制品有限公司（以下简称翔悦公司）、常州精炼石化有限公司（以下简称精炼公司）等处违规购置油泥、滤渣，提炼废润滑油进行销售牟利，造成博世尔公司场地及周边地区土壤受到严重污染。2014年7月18日，常州市环境公益协会提起诉讼，请求判令储卫清、博世尔公司、金科公司、翔悦公司、精炼公司共同承担土壤污染损失的赔偿责任。

【裁判结果】

江苏省常州市中级人民法院受理后，组成由环境保护专家担任人民陪审员的合议庭审理本案，依照法定程序就环境污染损害情况委托鉴定，并出具三套生态环境修复方案，在受污染场地周边公示，以现场问卷形式收集公众意见，最终参考公众意见、结合案情确定了生态环境修复方案。法院认为，储卫清违反国家规定，借用金科公司的危险废物经营资质并以该公司名义，将从翔悦公司、精炼公司购买的油泥、滤渣进行非法处置，污染周边环境；博世尔公司明知储卫清无危险废物经营许可证，为储卫清持续实施环境污染行为提供了场所和便利，造成其场地内环境污染损害结果的发生；翔悦公司、精炼公司明知储卫清行为违法，仍然违规将其生产经营过程中产生的危险废物交由储卫清处置，未支付处置费用，还向储卫清收取危险废物价款。五被告之行为相互结合导致损害结果的发生，构成共同侵权，应当共同承担侵权责任。遂判令五被告向江苏省常州市生态环境法律保护公益金专用账户支付环境修复赔偿金283万余元。一审判决送达后，各方当事人均未上诉。判决生效后，一审法院组织检察机关、环境保护行政主管部门、鉴定机构以及案件当事人共同商定第三方托管方案,由第三方具体实施污染造成的生态环境治理和修复。

【典型意义】

环境侵权案件具有很强的专业性、技术性，对于污染物认定、损失评估、因果关系认定、环境生态修复方案等问题，通常需要从专业技术的角度作出评判。受案法院在审理过程中，邀请环境保护专家担任人民陪审员，委托专业机构进行鉴定评估，制作生态环境修复方案，很好的发挥了技术专家和专业机构的辅助与支持作用。此外，受案法院将土壤修复方案向社会公布、听取公众意见，保障了公众对环境修复工作的有效参与；引入第三方治理模式，通过市场化运作，将环境修复交由专业公司实施，既有利于解决判决执行的监管，也有利于提高污染治理效率。

案例4、曲忠全诉山东富海实业股份有限公司大气污染责任纠纷案

【基本案情】

1995年，曲忠全承包一处集体土地种植樱桃。2001年，山东富海实业股份有限公司（以下简称富海公司）迁至曲忠全樱桃园毗邻处从事铝产品生产加工。2009年4月，曲忠全提起诉讼，请求富海公司停止排放废气，赔偿其损失501万余元。为证明其主张，曲忠全提交了烟台市牟平区公证处勘验笔录、烟台市农产品质量检测中心出具的樱桃叶片氟含量检测报告等证据。后经双方共同选定和取样，一审法院委托山东省农业科学院中心实验室对樱桃叶片的氟化物含量予以检测，检测报告表明：距离富海公司厂区越近，樱桃叶片氟化物含量越高。富海公司提供樱桃树叶氟含量检测报告、厂区大气氟化物含量检测报告、烟台市牟平区气象局出具的2008年2月至2009年5月的气候情况等证据，拟证明其不存在排污行为，曲忠全樱桃园受到损害系气候原因所致。

【裁判结果】

山东省烟台市中级人民法院一审判令富海公司停止排放氟化物，赔偿曲忠全损失204万余元。曲忠全、富海公司均不服提起上诉。山东省高级人民法院二审判令富海公司赔偿曲忠全224万余元。富海公司不服，向最高人民法院申请再审。

最高人民法院审查认为，曲忠全提交的公证勘验笔录和检测报告，与相关科普资料、国家标准以及一审法院委托专业机构出具的检测报告等证据相互印证，足以证明曲忠全的樱桃园受到损害，富海公司排污，排污和损害之间具有关联性，已完成举证证明责任。富海公司作为侵权人，其提交的樱桃树叶氟化物含量检测报告中距离厂区越近浓度越低的结论有悖常识；厂区大气氟化物含量检测报告系2010年5月7日作出，与本案待证事实不具有关联性；天气原因亦不能否定排污行为和损害之间的因果关系。考虑到确实存在天气恶劣等影响樱桃生产的原因，二审法院酌情判令富海公司对曲忠全的损失承担70%的赔偿责任，认定事实和适用法律均无不当。

【典型意义】

《最高人民法院关于审理环境侵权责任纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第六条规定，被侵权人根据侵权责任法第六十五条规定请求赔偿的,应当提供污染者排放了污染物;被侵权人的损害;污染者排放的污染物或者其次生污染物与损害之间具有关联性的证明材料。本案判决作出于上述司法解释之前，在适用侵权责任法第六十六条因果关系举证责任倒置原则的同时，要求被侵权人就污染行为与损害结果之间具有关联性负举证证明责任，对于细化被侵权人和污染者之间的举证责任分配，衡平双方利益具有典型意义，体现了审判实践在推进法律规则形成、探寻符合法律价值解决途径中的努力和贡献。同时，本案判决运用科普资料、国家标准以及专业机构的鉴定报告等做出事实认定，综合过错程度和原因力的大小合理划分责任范围，在事实查明方法和法律适用的逻辑、论证等方面提供了示范。

案例5、沈海俊诉机械工业第一设计研究院噪声污染责任纠纷案

【基本案情】

沈海俊系机械工业第一设计研究院（以下简称机械设计院）退休工程师，住该院宿舍。为增加院内暖气管道输送压力，机械设计院在沈海俊的住宅东墙外侧安装了增压泵。2014年，沈海俊认为增压泵影响其休息向法院提起诉讼。后双方达成和解，沈海俊撤回起诉，机械设计院将增压泵移至沈海俊住宅东墙外热交换站的东侧。2015年，沈海俊又以增压泵影响其睡眠、住宅需要零噪声为由，再次诉至法院，要求判令机械设计院停止侵害，拆除产生噪声的增压泵，赔偿其精神损害费1万元。根据沈海俊的申请，法院委托蚌埠市环境监测站对增压泵进行监测，结果显示沈海俊居住卧室室内噪声所有指标均未超过规定的限值。

【裁判结果】

安徽省蚌埠市禹会区人民法院一审认为，经监测，增压泵作为被测主要声源，在正常连续工作时，沈海俊居住卧室室内噪声所有指标均未超过规定的限值。沈海俊关于增压泵在夜间必须是零噪声的诉讼主张没有法律依据。一审法院判决驳回沈海俊的诉讼请求。安徽省蚌埠市中级人民法院二审维持了一审判决。

【典型意义】

环境噪声污染防治法第二条规定，环境噪声污染是指所产生的环境噪声超过国家规定的环境噪声排放标准，并干扰他人正常生活、工作和学习的现象。与一般环境侵权适用无过错责任原则不同，环境噪声侵权行为人的主观上要有过错，其外观须具有超过国家规定的噪声排放标准的违法性，才承担噪声污染侵权责任。因此，是否超过国家规定的环境噪声排放标准，是判断排放行为是否构成噪声污染侵权的依据。经委托鉴定，在增压泵正常工作过程中，沈海俊居住卧室室内噪声并未超过国家规定标准，不构成噪声污染，机械设计院不承担噪声污染侵权责任。本案判决有利于指引公众在依法保障其合法权益的同时，承担一定范围和限度内的容忍义务，衡平各方利益，促进邻里和睦，共同提升生活质量。

案例6、袁科威诉广州嘉富房地产发展有限公司噪声污染责任纠纷案

【基本案情】

袁科威购买了广州嘉富房地产发展有限公司（以下简称嘉富公司）开发的商品房。2014年2月，袁科威委托中国科学院广州化学研究所测试分析中心对其居住的房屋进行环境质量监测。该中心作出的环境监测报告显示袁科威卧室夜间的噪声值超过了《民用建筑隔声设计规范》（GB50118-2010）规定的噪声最高限值标准。袁科威认为住宅电梯临近其房屋，电梯设备直接设置在与其住房客厅共用墙之上，且未作任何隔音处理，致使电梯存在噪声污染。向法院提起诉讼，要求判令嘉富公司承担侵权责任。嘉富公司主张案涉电梯质量合格，住宅设计和电梯设计、电梯安装均符合国家规定并经政府部门验收合格，故其不应承担侵权责任。

【裁判结果】

广东省广州市越秀区人民法院一审认为，嘉富公司主张案涉电梯在设计、建筑、安装均符合国家相关部门的规定并经验收合格才投入使用，且电梯每年均进行年检并达标，但这只能证明电梯能够安全运行。袁科威购买的房屋经监测噪声值超过国家规定标准，构成了噪声污染。嘉富公司提供的证据不足以证明其对涉案房屋超标噪声不承担责任或者存在减轻责任的情形。一审法院判令嘉富公司60日内对案涉电梯采取相应的隔声降噪措施，使袁科威居住的房屋的噪声达到《民用建筑隔声设计规范》（GB50118-2010）规定的噪声最高限值以下；逾期未达标准，按每日100元对袁科威进行补偿；支付袁科威精神抚慰金1万元。广东省广州市中级人民法院二审维持了一审判决。

【典型意义】

电梯是民用建筑的一部分，电梯的设计、建设与安装均应当接受《民用建筑隔声设计规范》（GB50118-2010）的调整。经过监测，涉案电梯的噪声值已经超过国家标准，构成噪声污染。根据侵权责任法第六十六条规定，嘉富公司要对其行为与损害不存在因果关系或者减轻责任的情形承担举证证明责任。在嘉富公司未能提供证据证明袁科威对涉案电梯噪声超标存在过错或故意，亦不能证明噪声超标系第三人、不可抗力、正当防卫或紧急避险等原因造成，其不存在法律规定的不承担责任或者减轻责任的情形，应承担相应的侵权责任。本案的审理结果具有很好的警示作用，尤其是生产经营者要在机械设备的设计、建造、安装及日常运营过程中，关注噪声是否达标，自觉承担应有的环境保护社会责任。

案例7、梁兆南诉华润水泥（上思）有限公司水污染责任纠纷案

【基本案情】

2011年10月5日，上思县水产畜牧兽医局接到梁兆南报告，梁兆南所承包的下走水库因华润水泥（上思）有限公司（以下简称华润公司）所属华润水泥厂所排入的污水污染致使大批鱼类死亡。该局与县环境监测大队、思阳镇政府等单位组成联合调查组多次前往现场调查，调查报告显示，下走水库水质发黄混浊，水库周围靠近岸边的水面及其他水面出现死鱼；华润水泥厂的排水沟有水泥、煤炭等粉灰不断排入水库。上思县渔政管理站出具的《现场检查（勘验）笔录》记载，华润水泥厂位于水库上游，有水沟直接排到水库。上思县水产畜牧兽医局会同思阳镇政府、六银村、龙怀村及华润公司等单位到现场勘察，发现库中鱼类基本死亡。梁兆南提起诉讼，主张华润公司承担侵权责任。经法院委托鉴定确认，梁兆南的鱼类损失为11万余元。

【裁判结果】

广西壮族自治区上思县人民法院一审认为，华润公司有污染源进入梁兆南的养殖水库，其水库中鱼类基本死亡。上思县水产畜牧兽医局出具的调查报告，是在联合调查组三次现场勘察、对周边群众进行询问后形成的，并无违法情形，调查报告得出下走水库鱼类死亡与华润公司排污有因果关系的结论，应予采信。华润公司存在污染侵权行为，其所举证据并不足以证明其行为与损害之间没有因果关系，故其应承担环境污染的侵权责任，赔偿下走水库鱼类死亡的损失。一审法院判令华润公司赔偿梁兆南经济损失11万余元。广西壮族自治区防城港市中级人民法院二审维持了一审判决。

【典型意义】

环境污染具有易逝性、扩散性，污染事件发生后，必须尽快收集、固定相关证据。环境保护行政主管部门依职权或应当事人申请对污染者、污染物、排污设备，环境介质等进行查封、扣押、记录、检测、处罚，形成的行政文书有助于人民法院准确认定案件事实。本案污染事故发生后，政府相关部门及时介入，成立联合调查组，出具调查报告，固定、保全证据，为受案法院准确认定案件事实奠定良好基础。受案法院根据调查报告等，认定华润公司有污染行为，梁兆南承包的水库确有鱼类死亡的损害事实存在，水库鱼类死亡与华润公司排污有因果关系，本案对促进行政、司法联动，发挥行政文书的证明作用，解决环境侵权案件的举证难问题具有示范作用。《最高人民法院关于审理环境侵权责任纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第十条规定，“负有环境保护监督管理职责的部门或者其委托的机构出具的环境污染事件调查报告、检验报告、检测报告、评估报告或者监测数据等,经当事人质证,可以作为认定案件事实的根据。”进一步肯定了本案的做法。

案例8、周航诉荆门市明祥物流有限公司、重庆铁发遂渝高速公路有限公司水污染责任纠纷案

【基本案情】

2012年2月20日，荆门市明祥物流有限公司（以下简称明祥物流公司）所有的油罐运输车，在重庆铁发遂渝高速公路有限公司（以下简称遂渝高速公司）管理的成渝环线高速公路发生意外事故，所载变压器油泄漏。事故发生后，遂渝高速公司及时处理交通事故，撒沙处理油污路段。经铜梁县环境保护局现场勘验，长约1公里、宽约10米的路面被泄漏的变压器油污染。泄漏的变压器油顺着高速公路边坡流入高速公路下方雨水沟，经涵洞流入周航承包的鱼塘，鱼塘水面有大面积油层漂浮。经铜梁县环境监测站监测，鱼塘挥发酚、石油类浓度均超标。经鉴定，周航损失鱼类经济价值为35万余元。周航提起诉讼，要求明祥物流公司、遂渝高速公司承担侵权责任，赔偿其损失。

【裁判结果】

重庆市渝北区人民法院一审认为，明祥物流公司运输车辆在遂渝高速公司管理的成渝环线高速公路发生意外事故，变压器油泄露，导致周航承包的鱼塘中鱼类死亡，明祥物流公司应当承担侵权责任。遂渝高速公司作为事故路段的管理者，应充分了解其控制、管理路产的周边情况，在交通事故导致变压器油大量泄漏并可能导致水污染事件的情况下，应当及时启动应急预案并采取有效措施，控制污染源，防止损害的扩大。遂渝高速公司在事故发生后仅应急处理路面交通情况，并未对该路段周围油污进行清理，致使油污流入周航承包的鱼塘造成进一步损害，应根据其过错程度承担次要的赔偿责任。遂判令明祥物流公司承担70%的赔偿责任，遂渝高速公司承担30%的赔偿责任。重庆市第一中级人民法院二审维持了一审判决。

【典型意义】

本案系在高速公路发生意外事故导致的环境污染及财产损害纠纷。随着我国高速公路的延伸和行驶车辆的增多，高速公路及两侧区域的生态环境保护问题日益突出。高速公路及其沿线的环境保护，不仅仅是环境保护行政主管部门的责任，更需要车辆所有人与使用人、高速公路建设单位与运营单位等方面的共同参与。本案中，遂渝高速公司虽然不是污染事故的肇事者，但在高速公路意外事故造成或者可能造成水污染事件的情况下，其理应依法采取有效措施予以处置，并向有关主管部门报告。遂渝高速公司没有履行上述义务，造成损失扩大，应当承担相应的赔偿责任。本案判决对于高速公路的运营、管理单位提高认识，完善机制，履行环境保护义务具有规范、引导作用。

案例9、吴国金诉中铁五局（集团）有限公司、中铁五局集团路桥工程有限责任公司噪声污染责任纠纷案

【基本案情】

在中铁五局（集团）有限公司（以下简称中铁五局）、中铁五局集团路桥工程有限责任公司（以下简称路桥公司）施工期间，距离施工现场约20至30米的吴国金养殖场出现蛋鸡大量死亡、生产软蛋和畸形蛋等情况。吴国金聘请三位动物医学和兽医方面的专家到养殖场进行探查，认为蛋鸡不是因为疫病死亡，而是在突然炮声或长期噪声影响下受到惊吓，卵子进入腹腔内形成腹膜炎所致。吴国金提起诉讼，请求中铁五局、路桥公司赔偿损失150万余元。

【裁判结果】

贵州省清镇市人民法院一审认为：吴国金养殖场蛋鸡的损失与中铁五局、路桥公司施工产生的噪声之间具有因果关系，中铁五局、路桥公司应承担相应的侵权责任。按照举证责任分配规则，吴国金应证明其具体损失数额。虽然吴国金所举证据无法证明其所受损失的具体数额，但中铁五局、路桥公司对于施工中产生的噪声造成吴国金损失的事实不持异议，表示愿意承担赔偿责任。但在此情况下，一审法院依据公平原则，借助养殖手册、专家证人所提供的基础数据，建立计算模型，计算出吴国金所受损失并判令中铁五局、路桥公司赔偿35万余元。贵州省贵阳市中级人民法院二审肯定了一审法院以养殖手册及专家意见确定本案实际损失的做法，终审判令中铁五局、路桥公司赔偿吴国金45万余元。

【典型意义】

环境损害数额的确定，往往需要通过技术手段鉴定。但在鉴定困难、鉴定成本过高或不宜进行鉴定的情况下，人民法院可以参考专家意见，结合案件具体案情，依正当程序合理确定损失数额。本案中，吴国金能够证明其开办养鸡场在先，二被告施工行为在后，在二被告施工期间其养殖的蛋鸡出现异常死亡，并提交专家论证报告及其自行记载的蛋鸡死亡数量，但是难以举证证明损害的具体数额。在此情况下，受案法院并没有机械地因吴国金证据不足，判决驳回其诉讼请求，而是充分考虑噪声污染的特殊性，在认定蛋鸡受损系与二被告施工噪声存在因果关系的基础上，通知专家就本案蛋鸡损失等专业性问题出庭作证，充分运用专家证言、养殖手册等确定蛋鸡损失基础数据，并在专家的帮助下建立蛋鸡损失计算模型，得出损失数额并判决支持了吴国金部分诉请，在确定环境损害数额问题上做了有益尝试。

案例10、李才能诉海南海石实业有限公司粉尘污染责任纠纷案

【基本案情】

海南海石实业有限公司（以下简称海石公司）未经依法批准，自2010年起租赁集体土地建设灰沙环保砖厂，所建厂房位于李才能羊圈及屋舍西面隔壁。李才能认为海石公司生产经营排放的石灰粉尘、烧锅炉产生的蒸汽、废烟及设备噪声等造成了山羊和种植的菠萝蜜树叶损害，遂向法院提起诉讼，请求判令海石公司停止侵害，停止石灰粉碎和烧锅炉生产作业，赔偿其菠萝蜜树叶及林下草地失去草料价值所致损失以及其身体健康损害、水井污染和孕羊流产等损失共计53000元。

【裁判结果】

海南省海口市琼山区人民法院受理案件后，指导李才能委托法律援助律师，并免去其需预交的案件受理费用。承办法官及时赴现场查勘、拍摄固定海石公司污染行为的有关证据，向环境保护、国土主管部门调取海石公司未办理环境影响评价、违法占地及排污等证据。考虑到损害鉴定费用高、周期长，而本案基本事实清楚，法律关系明晰，为依法妥善解决纠纷，一审法院在明确案件基本事实的基础上，明之以法、晓之以理，促成李才能、海石公司自愿达成调解协议，由海石公司一次性赔偿李才能损失53000元，并于签收调解书时当场支付赔偿款。调解书生效后，一审法院向环境保护主管部门发出司法建议，以监督海石公司限期整改，消除污染，防止后续环境损害行为的发生。

【典型意义】

调解是贯穿民事诉讼的基本原则。在环境侵权案件审理过程中，人民法院应当统筹社会力量，健全完善调解机制，推动形成防范化解社会矛盾的整体合力，充分发挥司法在环境资源纠纷多元化解决机制中的引领、推动和保障作用。本案受案法院在查明事实、分清是非的基础上，积极探寻当事人个人利益与生态环境保护的根本利益的交汇点，在依法保障个人合法权益，促成李才能与海石公司达成和解的同时，注重环境治理、修复，向环境保护主管部门发出司法建议，促进了司法与行政执法的有机衔接，共同强化对生态环境的保护力度。此外，受案法院依法免除原告应预交的诉讼费用，指导原告委托法律援助律师，将法律援助与司法救助对接，引导当事人依法理性表达诉求、维护环境权益的做法，亦值得肯定。

catalogue

1、 The Civil Public Interest Litigation Case of Four People, including the Natural Friends Environmental Research Institute in Chaoyang District, Beijing and the Fujian Green Homeland Environmental Friendship Center, suing Xie Zhijin and others for damaging forest land

2、 China Environmental Protection Federation v. Dezhou Jinghua Group Zhenhua Co., Ltd. Air Pollution Civil Public Interest Litigation Case

3、 Changzhou Environmental Public Welfare Association v. Chu Weiqing, Changzhou Boshel Material Recycling Co., Ltd. and other civil public welfare litigation cases of soil pollution

4、 Qu Zhongquan v. Shandong Fuhai Industrial Co., Ltd. Air Pollution Liability Dispute Case

5、 Shen Haijun v. The First Design and Research Institute of Mechanical Industry for Noise Pollution Liability Dispute Case

6、 Yuan Kewei v. Guangzhou Jiafu Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Noise Pollution Liability Dispute Case

7、 Liang Zhaonan v. China Resources Cement (Shangsi) Co., Ltd. Water Pollution Liability Dispute Case

8、 Zhou Hang v. Jingmen Mingxiang Logistics Co., Ltd. and Chongqing Tiefa Suiyu Expressway Co., Ltd. Water Pollution Liability Dispute Case

9、 Wu Guojin v. China Railway Fifth Bureau (Group) Co., Ltd. and China Railway Fifth Bureau Group Road and Bridge Engineering Co., Ltd. Noise Pollution Liability Dispute Case

10、 Li Cai v. Hainan Haishi Industrial Co., Ltd. Dust Pollution Liability Dispute Case

Case 1: A civil public interest lawsuit against Xie Zhijin and four others for damaging forest land, filed by the Natural Friends Environmental Research Institute in Chaoyang District, Beijing and the Fujian Green Home Environmental Friendship Center

【Basic Case】

On July 29, 2008, Xie Zhijin and four others expanded the mining scope without approval from the administrative department. They adopted methods such as peeling the mountain skin from the top of the mountain, dumping the abandoned rocks generated by mining to the bottom of the mountain, and constructing work sheds below the mining pond, severely damaging 28.33 acres of forest vegetation. On July 28, 2014, Xie Zhijin and others were sentenced to criminal penalties for illegally occupying agricultural land. On January 1, 2015, Beijing Chaoyang District Friends of Nature Environmental Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as Friends of Nature) and Fujian Green Home Environmental Friendship Center (hereinafter referred to as Green Home) filed a lawsuit, requesting that the four defendants bear the responsibility of restoring forest vegetation within a certain period of time and compensate 1.34 million yuan for the loss of ecological and environmental service functions; If the forest vegetation cannot be restored within a certain period of time, more than 1.1 million yuan in ecological environment restoration costs should be compensated; To jointly reimburse the plaintiff for the assessment fees, legal fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in the litigation.

【 Judgment result 】

The Intermediate People's Court of Nanping City, Fujian Province held in first instance that Xie Zhijin and four others occupied forest land for mining, which not only severely damaged the original vegetation of 28.33 acres of forest land, but also caused losses in ecological service functions during the period from forest vegetation damage to restoration. They should jointly bear the tort liability of restoring forest vegetation and compensating for ecological function losses in accordance with the law. Subsequently, it was ordered that Xie Zhijin and four others restore the damaged 28.33 acres of forest land within five months from the effective date of the judgment, replant trees on the forest land and care for it for three years. If the forest vegetation cannot be restored within the specified period, they will jointly compensate for the ecological environment restoration cost of over 1.1 million yuan; Joint compensation of 1.27 million yuan for the loss of ecological and environmental service functions, used for in-situ or off-site ecological restoration; We jointly paid the plaintiff more than 165000 yuan in assessment fees, lawyer fees, and other reasonable expenses for litigation expenses. The Fujian Provincial Higher People's Court upheld the first instance judgment in the second instance.

【Typical significance】

This case is the first environmental civil public interest lawsuit in China after the implementation of the new environmental protection law, involving issues such as the examination of the plaintiff's subject qualification, the assumption of environmental restoration responsibility, and compensation for the loss of ecological and environmental service functions. The judgment in this case, in accordance with Article 58 of the Environmental Protection Law and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation Cases, confirms the main qualifications of Friends of Nature and Green Home as plaintiffs in public interest litigation; Taking ecological environment restoration as the focus, the defendant was ordered to restore the damaged forest land function within a time limit, replant trees on the forest land and care for three years, in order to achieve the goal of restoring forest vegetation and restoring the ecological environment as soon as possible; For the first time, the judgment clearly supported the compensation request for service function loss during the period from ecological environment damage to restoration, increased the illegal cost of ecological destruction, and reflected the value concept of protecting the ecological environment. The judgment has a good evaluation, guidance, and demonstration role.

Case 2: China Environmental Protection Federation v. Dezhou Jinghua Group Zhenhua Co., Ltd. Air Pollution Civil Public Interest Litigation Case

【Basic Case】

Dezhou Jinghua Group Zhenhua Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhenhua Company) is an enterprise engaged in the manufacturing of glass and glass deep processing products, located in the urban area of Dezhou, Shandong Province. Although Zhenhua Company has invested funds in the construction of desulfurization and dust removal facilities, there are still two chimneys that have exceeded the standard for a long time, causing air pollution and seriously affecting the lives of surrounding residents. In 2014, Zhenhua Company was named and criticized by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, and was punished multiple times by the environmental protection administrative department of Shandong Province. However, it continued to exceed the standard and discharge pollutants into the atmosphere. On March 25, 2015, the China Environmental Protection Federation filed a lawsuit requesting that Zhenhua Company immediately stop excessive emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere and install air pollution prevention and control facilities. Production and business activities can only be carried out after passing the acceptance and putting into use by the environmental protection administrative department; Compensation of 20.4 million yuan for losses caused by excessive discharge of pollutants and 7.8 million yuan for losses caused by refusal to correct excessive discharge of pollutants, and payment of compensation funds to the local government's financial special account for the control of atmospheric pollution in Dezhou City; Make public apologies to the society in provincial and above media; Bear the expenses incurred for litigation, inspection, appraisal, expert witnesses, lawyers, and other litigation expenses in this case.

After the Intermediate People's Court of Dezhou City, Shandong Province accepted this case, it served the civil lawsuit and other litigation materials to Zhenhua Company, announced the acceptance of the case to the society, and informed the Dezhou Environmental Protection Bureau of the acceptance of the case. The People's Government of Dezhou City and the Environmental Protection Bureau of Dezhou City actively support and cooperate with the trial of this case, and jointly hold a coordination meeting with the first instance court. Through the linkage and coordination between judicial authorities and environmental protection administrative authorities, Zhenhua Company has shut down all production lines, built a new factory in the Tianqu Industrial Park far from residential areas, and initiated the relocation of the old factory area. On September 21, 2015, the court organized a cross-examination between the plaintiff and the defendant, where they met and exchanged opinions on relevant evidence materials, the defendant's rectification situation, and other issues. The case is still under trial.

【Typical significance】

The trial of environmental public interest litigation cases should coordinate the relationship between environmental protection and economic development in accordance with the law, support government departments in exercising their responsibilities in environmental governance and ecological restoration, and urge enterprises to better operate and develop on the basis of assuming environmental protection obligations and responsibilities. This case is the first environmental civil public interest lawsuit filed by the people's court against air pollution after the implementation of the new Environmental Protection Law. After the court accepts the case, in accordance with the requirements of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation Cases" and the "Notice of the Supreme People's Court, the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and the Ministry of Environmental Protection on the Implementation of the Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation System", timely communication with government departments is carried out, and the coordination and linkage role of judicial and administrative law enforcement is played to urge the defendant to stop polluting behavior in a timely manner and actively shut down the production line, Actively rectifying, relocating, and relocating from the urban area have prevented further expansion of pollution and damage, promoting the transformation and development of Zhenhua Company into an energy-saving and environmentally friendly enterprise. Although this case has not yet been concluded, the above practices comply with the trial principles and work requirements of environmental public interest litigation cases, and the phased trial results achieved are worthy of recognition.

Case 3: Changzhou Environmental Public Welfare Association v. Chu Weiqing, Changzhou Boshel Material Recycling Co., Ltd. and other civil public welfare litigation cases of soil pollution

【Basic Case】

From September 1, 2012 to December 11, 2013, with the consent of Changzhou Bosheer Material Recycling Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bosheer Company), Chu Weiqing engaged in the disposal and operation of "oily filter residue" using the company's premises and equipment. During this period, Wuxi Jinke Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinke Company), knowing that Chuweiqing does not have the qualifications to dispose of hazardous waste, allowed it to use the hazardous waste business license and illegally purchase oil sludge and filter residue from Wuxi Xiangyue Petroleum Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiangyue Company), Changzhou Refining and Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Refining Company) and other places in the name of the company, to extract waste lubricating oil for sale and profit, Causing serious soil pollution to the Bosch company site and surrounding areas. On July 18, 2014, the Changzhou Environmental Public Welfare Association filed a lawsuit requesting that Chu Weiqing, Boshel Company, Jinke Company, Xiangyue Company, and Refining Company jointly bear the compensation liability for soil pollution losses.

【 Judgment result 】

After the Intermediate People's Court of Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province accepted the case, a collegial panel consisting of environmental protection experts serving as people's jurors was formed to hear the case. According to legal procedures, the environmental pollution damage situation was entrusted for appraisal, and three sets of ecological environment restoration plans were issued. The plans were publicized around the contaminated site, and public opinions were collected in the form of on-site questionnaires. Finally, the ecological environment restoration plan was determined based on public opinions and the case situation. The court held that Chu Weiqing violated national regulations by borrowing the hazardous waste management qualification of Jinke Company and illegally disposing of oil sludge and filter residue purchased from Xiangyue Company and Refining Company in the name of the company, polluting the surrounding environment; Boshel Company is aware that there is no hazardous waste business license for storage and cleaning, which provides a place and convenience for storage and cleaning to continuously carry out environmental pollution behavior, resulting in the occurrence of environmental pollution damage on its site; Xiangyue Company and Refining Company, aware of the illegal behavior of Chu Wei Qing, still illegally entrusted the hazardous waste generated in their production and operation process to Chu Wei Qing for disposal. They did not pay the disposal fee and also charged Chu Wei Qing for the hazardous waste. The combination of the actions of the five defendants leads to the occurrence of damages, which constitutes joint infringement and shall jointly bear the liability for infringement. Thus, it was ordered that the five defendants pay over 2.83 million yuan in environmental restoration compensation to the special account for ecological and environmental legal protection public welfare funds in Changzhou, Jiangsu Province. After the first instance judgment was delivered, none of the parties appealed. After the judgment takes effect, the first instance court shall organize the procuratorial organs, environmental protection administrative departments, appraisal institutions, and the parties to the case to jointly agree on a third-party custody plan, and the third party shall specifically implement the ecological environment governance and restoration caused by pollution.

【Typical significance】

Environmental infringement cases have strong professionalism and technicality. For issues such as pollutant identification, loss assessment, causal relationship identification, and environmental ecological restoration plans, it is usually necessary to make judgments from a professional and technical perspective. During the trial process, the court in question invited environmental protection experts to serve as people's assessors, entrusted professional institutions to conduct appraisal and evaluation, and produced ecological environment restoration plans, effectively playing the auxiliary and supportive role of technical experts and professional institutions. In addition, the affected court made the soil remediation plan public and listened to public opinions, ensuring effective public participation in environmental remediation work; Introducing a third-party governance model and delegating environmental remediation to professional companies through market-oriented operations is not only beneficial for resolving regulatory issues related to enforcement of judgments, but also for improving pollution control efficiency.

Case 4: Qu Zhongquan v. Shandong Fuhai Industrial Co., Ltd. Air Pollution Liability Dispute Case

【Basic Case】

In 1995, Qu Zhongquan contracted a collective land to plant cherries. In 2001, Shandong Fuhai Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fuhai Company) moved to the adjacent area of Quzhongquan Cherry Orchard to engage in the production and processing of aluminum products. In April 2009, Qu Zhongquan filed a lawsuit requesting Fuhai Company to stop emitting exhaust gas and compensate for its losses of over 5.01 million yuan. To prove his claim, Qu Zhongquan submitted evidence such as the inspection records of the notary office in Muping District, Yantai City, and the fluorine content testing report of cherry leaves issued by the Yantai Agricultural Product Quality Testing Center. After joint selection and sampling by both parties, the first instance court entrusted the Central Laboratory of Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences to test the fluoride content in cherry leaves. The test report showed that the closer the cherry leaves were to the factory area of Fuhai Company, the higher the fluoride content in cherry leaves. Fuhai Company provides evidence such as a fluorine content test report for cherry leaves, a fluoride content test report for the atmosphere in the factory area, and the climate situation from February 2008 to May 2009 issued by the Mouping District Meteorological Bureau in Yantai City, to prove that it did not engage in pollution discharge. The damage to the Quzhongquan Cherry Orchard was caused by climate reasons.

【 Judgment result 】

The Intermediate People's Court of Yantai City, Shandong Province ordered Fuhai Company to stop discharging fluoride in the first instance and compensated Qu Zhongquan with over 2.04 million yuan in losses. Qu Zhongquan and Fuhai Company both appealed against it. The Shandong Provincial High People's Court ordered Fuhai Company to compensate Qu Zhongquan with over 2.24 million yuan in the second instance. Fuhai Company is dissatisfied and applies for a retrial to the Supreme People's Court.

The Supreme People's Court has reviewed and found that the notarized inspection records and testing reports submitted by Qu Zhongquan, along with relevant popular science materials, national standards, and testing reports issued by professional institutions entrusted by the first instance court, are mutually corroborating and sufficient to prove that Qu Zhongquan's cherry orchard has been damaged, and that there is a correlation between Fuhai Company's pollution discharge and damage. The burden of proof has been completed. As the infringer, Fuhai Company's conclusion that the closer it is to the factory area, the lower the concentration in the fluoride content detection report of cherry leaves submitted is contrary to common sense; The detection report of atmospheric fluoride content in the factory area was made on May 7, 2010, and is not related to the facts to be proven in this case; Weather reasons cannot deny the causal relationship between pollution discharge behavior and damage. Considering that there are indeed reasons such as adverse weather that affect cherry production, the second instance court, at its discretion, ordered Fuhai Company to bear 70% of the compensation liability for Qu Zhongquan's losses, and found that the facts and applicable laws were not inappropriate.

【Typical significance】

Article 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environmental Tort Liability Disputes stipulates that if the infringee requests compensation in accordance with Article 65 of the Tort Liability Law, it shall provide evidence that the polluter has discharged pollutants; Damage caused by the infringed party; Evidence of the correlation between pollutants emitted by polluters or their secondary pollutants and damage. The judgment in this case is based on the above judicial interpretation. While applying Article 66 of the Tort Liability Law on the inversion of the burden of proof for causal relationships, it requires the infringee to bear the burden of proof for the correlation between the pollution act and the damage result. This is of typical significance for refining the allocation of burden of proof between the infringee and the polluter, balancing the interests of both parties, and reflecting the judicial practice in promoting the formation of legal rules Efforts and contributions in exploring solutions that meet legal values. At the same time, the judgment in this case used popular science materials, national standards, and expert reports from professional institutions to make factual determinations, and reasonably divided the scope of responsibility based on the degree of fault and the magnitude of the causal force. It provided a demonstration in the methods of factual investigation and the logic and argumentation of legal application.

Case 5: Shen Haijun v. The First Design and Research Institute of Mechanical Industry for Noise Pollution Liability Dispute

【Basic Case】

Shen Haijun is a retired engineer from the First Design and Research Institute of Mechanical Industry (hereinafter referred to as the Mechanical Design Institute) and resides in the dormitory of the institute. To increase the delivery pressure of the heating pipeline in the hospital, the Mechanical Design Institute installed a booster pump on the outer side of the east wall of Shen Haijun's residence. In 2014, Shen Haijun filed a lawsuit in court alleging that the booster pump affected his rest. Later, both parties reached a settlement, and Shen Haijun withdrew his lawsuit. The Mechanical Design Institute moved the booster pump to the east side of the heat exchange station outside the east wall of Shen Haijun's residence. In 2015, Shen Haijun sued the court again on the grounds that the booster pump affected his sleep and required zero noise in his residence. He demanded that the Mechanical Design Institute stop the infringement, dismantle the booster pump that generated noise, and compensate him with 10000 yuan for mental damage. According to Shen Haijun's application, the court entrusted the Bengbu Environmental Monitoring Station to monitor the booster pump, and the results showed that all indicators of indoor noise in Shen Haijun's bedroom did not exceed the specified limit.

【 Judgment result 】

The People's Court of Yuhui District, Bengbu City, Anhui Province held in the first instance that after monitoring, the booster pump, as the main sound source being tested, did not exceed the specified limit values for all indoor noise indicators in Shen Haijun's bedroom during normal continuous operation. Shen Haijun's lawsuit that the booster pump must have zero noise at night has no legal basis. The first instance court ruled to dismiss Shen Haijun's lawsuit request. The Intermediate People's Court of Bengbu City, Anhui Province upheld the first instance judgment in the second instance.

【Typical significance】

Article 2 of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Noise Pollution stipulates that environmental noise pollution refers to the phenomenon where the generated environmental noise exceeds the national environmental noise emission standards and interferes with the normal life, work, and study of others. Unlike the principle of no fault liability applicable to general environmental torts, the subjective fault of the environmental noise tortfeasor must have an appearance that exceeds the national noise emission standards in order to bear the liability for noise pollution infringement. Therefore, whether it exceeds the national environmental noise emission standards is the basis for determining whether the emission behavior constitutes noise pollution infringement. After entrusted appraisal, it was found that during the normal operation of the booster pump, the indoor noise in Shen Haijun's bedroom did not exceed the national standard and did not constitute noise pollution. The Mechanical Design Institute does not assume any liability for noise pollution infringement. The judgment in this case is conducive to guiding the public to bear a certain range and limit of tolerance obligations while protecting their legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law, balancing the interests of all parties, promoting neighborhood harmony, and jointly improving the quality of life.

Case 6: Yuan Kewei v. Guangzhou Jiafu Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Noise Pollution Liability Dispute Case

【Basic Case】

Yuan Kewei purchased a commercial house developed by Guangzhou Jiafu Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiafu Company). In February 2014, Yuan Kewei entrusted the Testing and Analysis Center of Guangzhou Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, to monitor the environmental quality of the houses he lived in. The environmental monitoring report issued by the center shows that the noise level of Yuan Kewei's bedroom at night exceeds the maximum noise limit standard specified in the "Code for Sound Insulation Design of Civil Buildings" (GB50118-2010). Yuan Kewei believes that residential elevators are located near their houses, and the elevator equipment is directly installed on the shared wall with their living room without any sound insulation treatment, resulting in noise pollution in the elevators. Bring a lawsuit to the court and demand that Jiafu Company be held liable for infringement. Jiafu Company advocates that the quality of the elevators involved in the case is qualified, and that the residential design, elevator design, and elevator installation comply with national regulations and have been inspected and accepted by government departments, so it should not bear any liability for infringement.

【 Judgment result 】

The People's Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province held in the first instance that Jiafu Company claimed that the elevator involved in the case was put into use only after its design, construction, and installation met the requirements of relevant national departments and passed the acceptance inspection. Moreover, the elevator undergoes annual inspections and meets the standards, but this can only prove that the elevator can operate safely. The house purchased by Yuan Kewei has been monitored to have a noise level exceeding the national standard, which constitutes noise pollution. The evidence provided by Jiafu Company is insufficient to prove that it is not responsible for the excessive noise of the involved houses or that there is a situation of reducing responsibility. The first instance court ordered Jiafu Company to take corresponding sound insulation and noise reduction measures on the elevator involved within 60 days, so that the noise of Yuan Kewei's residential house reaches the maximum noise limit specified in the "Code for Sound Insulation Design of Civil Buildings" (GB50118-2010); If the deadline is not met, Yuan Kewei will be compensated at a rate of 100 yuan per day; Pay Yuan Kewei a spiritual comfort fund of 10000 yuan. The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court in Guangdong Province upheld the first instance judgment in the second instance.

【Typical significance】

Elevators are a part of civil buildings, and their design, construction, and installation should be adjusted according to the "Code for Sound Insulation Design of Civil Buildings" (GB50118-2010). After monitoring, the noise level of the elevator involved has exceeded national standards, constituting noise pollution. According to Article 66 of the Tort Liability Law, Jiafu Company shall bear the burden of proof in cases where there is no causal relationship between its actions and the damage or where the liability is reduced. Jiafu Company has failed to provide evidence to prove that Yuan Kewei was at fault or intentionally responsible for the excessive noise of the elevator involved in the case, nor can he prove that the excessive noise was caused by third parties, force majeure, legitimate defense, or emergency avoidance. There is no legal requirement for him to not assume responsibility or reduce responsibility, and he should bear corresponding tort liability. The trial results of this case serve as a good warning, especially for producers and operators who should pay attention to whether the noise meets the standards during the design, construction, installation, and daily operation of mechanical equipment, and consciously assume their due social responsibility for environmental protection.

Case 7: Liang Zhaonan v. China Resources Cement (Shangsi) Co., Ltd. Water Pollution Liability Dispute Case

【Basic Case】

On October 5, 2011, the Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Bureau of Shangsi County received a report from Liang Zhaonan that the Xialiao Reservoir contracted by Liang Zhaonan had caused a large number of fish deaths due to sewage pollution discharged from the China Resources Cement Plant affiliated with China Resources Cement (Shangsi) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Company). The bureau, together with the county environmental monitoring team and the Siyang Town government, has formed a joint investigation team to conduct multiple on-site investigations. The investigation report shows that the water quality of the downstream reservoir has turned yellow and turbid, and dead fish have appeared on the water surface near the bank and other water surfaces around the reservoir; The drainage ditch of China Resources Cement Plant continuously discharges cement, coal and other powder ash into the reservoir. According to the "On site Inspection (Investigation) Record" issued by the Shangsi County Fishery Management Station, China Resources Cement Plant is located upstream of the reservoir, and there are ditches that directly discharge into the reservoir. The Shangsi County Aquaculture, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Bureau, together with the Siyang Town Government, Liuyin Village, Longhuai Village, and China Resources Corporation, conducted on-site investigations and found that the fish in the reservoir were mostly dead. Liang Zhaonan filed a lawsuit claiming that China Resources Corporation should bear the liability for infringement. After being entrusted by the court for appraisal and confirmation, Liang Zhaonan's fish loss was over 110000 yuan.

【 Judgment result 】

The People's Court of Shangsi County, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region held in the first instance that China Resources Corporation had a source of pollution entering Liang Zhaonan's aquaculture reservoir, and the fish in the reservoir were basically dead. The investigation report issued by the Shangsi County Aquaculture, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Bureau was formed after three on-site investigations by the joint investigation team and inquiries from surrounding residents. There were no illegal situations, and the investigation report concluded that there was a causal relationship between the death of fish in the downstream reservoir and the pollution discharge of China Resources Company, which should be accepted. China Resources Corporation has engaged in pollution infringement behavior, and the evidence provided by it is not sufficient to prove that there is no causal relationship between its behavior and the damage. Therefore, it should bear the liability for environmental pollution infringement and compensate for the loss of fish death in the downstream reservoir. The first instance court ordered China Resources Corporation to compensate Liang Zhaonan for economic losses of over 110000 yuan. The Intermediate People's Court of Fangchenggang City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region upheld the first instance judgment in the second instance.

【Typical significance】

Environmental pollution has the characteristics of perishability and diffusion. After a pollution event occurs, relevant evidence must be collected and fixed as soon as possible. The administrative department in charge of environmental protection shall seal up, detain, record, test, and punish polluters, pollutants, sewage discharge equipment, environmental media, etc. according to its authority or upon the application of the parties involved. The administrative documents formed will help the people's court accurately determine the facts of the case. After the pollution accident in this case occurred, relevant government departments intervened in a timely manner, established a joint investigation team, issued an investigation report, fixed and preserved evidence, and laid a solid foundation for the court to accurately determine the facts of the case. The court in question, based on the investigation report, determined that China Resources Corporation had engaged in pollution behavior. The fact that there was damage caused by fish death in the reservoir contracted by Liang Zhaonan did exist, and there was a causal relationship between fish death in the reservoir and China Resources Corporation's pollution discharge. This case has a demonstrative role in promoting administrative and judicial linkage, playing the role of administrative documents in proving, and solving the problem of difficulty in providing evidence in environmental infringement cases. Article 10 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environmental Tort Liability Disputes stipulates that "the investigation reports, inspection reports, testing reports, evaluation reports, or monitoring data of environmental pollution incidents issued by departments responsible for environmental protection supervision and management or their entrusted institutions, after being cross-examined by the parties, can serve as the basis for determining the facts of the case." This further confirms the approach of this case.

Case 8: Zhou Hang v. Jingmen Mingxiang Logistics Co., Ltd. and Chongqing Tiefa Suiyu Expressway Co., Ltd. Water Pollution Liability Dispute Case

【Basic Case】

On February 20, 2012, the oil tank transport vehicles owned by Jingmen Mingxiang Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mingxiang Logistics Company) experienced an accident on the Chengdu Chongqing Ring Expressway managed by Chongqing Railway Development Suiyu Expressway Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Suiyu Expressway Company), resulting in a transformer oil leakage. After the accident, Suiyu Expressway Company promptly handled the traffic accident and scattered sand to deal with the oily road section. After on-site inspection by the Environmental Protection Bureau of Tongliang County, it was found that the road surface, approximately 1 kilometer long and 10 meters wide, was contaminated by leaked transformer oil. The leaked transformer oil flows along the slope of the highway into the rainwater ditch below the highway, and through the culvert flows into the fish pond contracted by Zhouhang. There is a large area of oil layer floating on the surface of the fish pond. According to the monitoring by the Tongliang County Environmental Monitoring Station, the concentrations of volatile phenols and petroleum in the fish ponds exceeded the standard. After appraisal, the economic value of the fish lost by Zhouhang is over 350000 yuan. Zhou Hang filed a lawsuit demanding that Mingxiang Logistics Company and Suiyu Expressway Company bear the liability for infringement and compensate for their losses.

【 Judgment result 】

The People's Court of Yubei District, Chongqing held in first instance that the transportation vehicle of Mingxiang Logistics Company had an accident on the Chengdu Chongqing Ring Expressway managed by Suiyu Expressway Company, resulting in the leakage of transformer oil and the death of fish in the fish pond contracted by Zhou Hang. Mingxiang Logistics Company should bear the liability for infringement. As the manager of the accident section, Suiyu Expressway Company should fully understand the surrounding conditions of its control and management of road production. In the event of a large amount of transformer oil leakage caused by a traffic accident that may lead to water pollution incidents, it should promptly initiate emergency plans and take effective measures to control the pollution source and prevent the expansion of damage. After the accident, Suiyu Expressway Company only handled the road traffic situation in an emergency manner and did not clean up the oil pollution around the section, causing further damage to the fish pond contracted by Zhouhang. It should bear secondary compensation liability based on its fault level. Sui ordered Mingxiang Logistics Company to bear 70% of the compensation liability, and Suiyu Expressway Company to bear 30% of the compensation liability. The Chongqing First Intermediate People's Court upheld the first instance judgment in the second instance.

【Typical significance】

This case is a dispute over environmental pollution and property damage caused by an accident on a highway. With the extension of highways and the increase of vehicles in China, the ecological environment protection issues of highways and the areas on both sides are becoming increasingly prominent. The environmental protection of highways and their routes is not only the responsibility of the administrative department in charge of environmental protection, but also requires the joint participation of vehicle owners and users, as well as the construction and operation units of highways. In this case, although Suiyu Expressway Company is not the perpetrator of a pollution accident, in the event of a water pollution incident caused or likely to be caused by a highway accident, it should take effective measures to deal with it in accordance with the law and report to the relevant competent authorities. If Suiyu Expressway Company fails to fulfill the above obligations and causes further losses, it shall bear corresponding compensation responsibilities. The judgment in this case has a normative and guiding role in raising awareness, improving mechanisms, and fulfilling environmental protection obligations for the operation and management units of highways.

Case 9: Wu Guojin v. China Railway Fifth Bureau (Group) Co., Ltd. and China Railway Fifth Bureau Group Road and Bridge Engineering Co., Ltd. Noise Pollution Liability Dispute Case

【Basic Case】

During the construction period of China Railway Fifth Bureau (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as China Railway Fifth Bureau) and China Railway Fifth Bureau Group Road and Bridge Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Road and Bridge Company), a large number of laying hens died, soft eggs and deformed eggs were produced at Wu Guojin Farm, which is about 20 to 30 meters away from the construction site. Wu Guojin hired three experts in animal medicine and veterinary medicine to investigate at the breeding farm, believing that the laying hens did not die from the disease, but were startled by sudden gunfire or long-term noise, causing the eggs to enter the abdominal cavity and form peritonitis. Wu Guojin filed a lawsuit requesting compensation of over 1.5 million yuan from China Railway Fifth Bureau and Road and Bridge Company.

【 Judgment result 】

The People's Court of Qingzhen City, Guizhou Province held in the first instance that there was a causal relationship between the loss of laying hens in Wuguojin Farm and the noise generated by the construction of China Railway Fifth Bureau and Road and Bridge Company, and China Railway Fifth Bureau and Road and Bridge Company should bear corresponding tort liability. According to the allocation rules of burden of proof, Wu Guojin should prove the specific amount of his losses. Although the evidence provided by Wu Guojin cannot prove the specific amount of losses suffered, China Railway Fifth Bureau and Road and Bridge Company have no objection to the fact that the noise generated during construction caused Wu Guojin's losses and are willing to assume compensation responsibility. But in this case, the first instance court, based on the principle of fairness, established a calculation model using the breeding manual and basic data provided by expert witnesses, calculated the losses suffered by Wu Guojin, and ordered China Railway Fifth Bureau and Road and Bridge Company to compensate more than 350000 yuan. The Intermediate People's Court of Guiyang City, Guizhou Province, affirmed the first instance court's practice of determining the actual losses in this case based on the breeding manual and expert opinions, and finally ordered China Railway Fifth Bureau and Road and Bridge Company to compensate Wu Guojin with over 450000 yuan.

【Typical significance】

The determination of the amount of environmental damage often requires identification through technical means. However, in cases where appraisal is difficult, the cost of appraisal is too high, or it is not appropriate to conduct appraisal, the people's court can refer to expert opinions, combine the specific circumstances of the case, and reasonably determine the amount of loss in accordance with due process. In this case, Wu Guojin was able to prove that he started a chicken farm first, and the construction behavior of the second defendant was later. During the construction period of the second defendant, the laying hens he raised died abnormally, and he submitted an expert argumentation report and his self recorded number of laying hens died. However, it is difficult to provide evidence to prove the specific amount of damage. In this case, the court in question did not mechanically dismiss Wu Guojin's lawsuit request due to insufficient evidence. Instead, it fully considered the particularity of noise pollution and, based on the causal relationship between the damage to the laying hens and the construction noise of the two defendants, notified experts to testify in court on professional issues such as the loss of laying hens in this case, fully utilizing expert testimony, breeding manuals, and other basic data to determine the loss of laying hens, And with the help of experts, a calculation model for the loss of laying hens was established, and the amount of loss was determined, which supported some of Wu Guojin's claims and made a beneficial attempt to determine the amount of environmental damage.

Case 10: Li Caicai v. Hainan Haishi Industrial Co., Ltd. Dust Pollution Liability Dispute Case

【Basic Case】

Hainan Haishi Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Haishi Company), without legal approval, has leased collective land to build a lime sand environmentally friendly brick factory since 2010. The factory building is located next to the Li Cai Sheep pen and the west side of the house. Li Caicai believed that the lime dust discharged from the production and operation of Haishi, steam generated by the boiler, waste smoke and equipment noise caused damage to the goats and the planted jackfruit leaves, so he filed a lawsuit with the court to request Haishi to stop the infringement, stop the lime crushing and boiler burning operations, and compensate for the losses caused by the loss of forage value of its jackfruit leaves and grass under the forest, as well as its health damage The total loss caused by water well pollution and miscarriage of pregnant sheep is 53000 yuan.

【 Judgment result 】

After the People's Court of Qiongshan District, Haikou City, Hainan Province accepted the case, Li was instructed to entrust a legal aid lawyer and waive the case acceptance fees that he had to pay in advance. The presiding judge promptly went to the scene to investigate and film relevant evidence of the pollution behavior of the fixed sea stone company, and obtained evidence of the sea stone company's failure to handle environmental impact assessment, illegal land occupation, and pollution discharge from the environmental protection and land management departments. Considering the high cost and long cycle of damage appraisal, as well as the clear basic facts and legal relationships in this case, in order to properly resolve the dispute in accordance with the law, the first instance court, based on clarifying the basic facts of the case, made it clear that Li Caicai and Haishi Company voluntarily reached a mediation agreement, and Haishi Company compensated Li Caicai for a one-time loss of 53000 yuan, and paid the compensation on the spot when signing the mediation agreement. After the mediation agreement takes effect, the first instance court issued a judicial recommendation to the environmental protection authority to supervise Haishi Company to rectify within a specified period of time, eliminate pollution, and prevent subsequent environmental damage.

【Typical significance】

Mediation is a fundamental principle that runs through civil litigation. In the process of hearing environmental infringement cases, the people's court should coordinate social forces, improve mediation mechanisms, promote the formation of a comprehensive force to prevent and resolve social conflicts, and fully play the leading, promoting, and safeguarding role of the judiciary in the diversified resolution mechanism of environmental resource disputes. On the basis of identifying facts and distinguishing right from wrong, the court in this case actively explores the intersection of the personal interests of the parties and the fundamental interests of ecological environment protection. While safeguarding personal legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law and facilitating a settlement between Li Caicai and Haishi Company, it pays attention to environmental governance and restoration, and issues judicial suggestions to the environmental protection authorities, promoting the organic connection between judicial and administrative law enforcement, Jointly strengthen the protection of the ecological environment. In addition, the court in question has lawfully waived the plaintiff's pre paid litigation fees, guided the plaintiff to entrust legal aid lawyers, integrated legal aid with judicial assistance, and guided the parties to express their demands rationally and safeguard environmental rights and interests in accordance with the law. This practice is also worthy of recognition.