On May 8, 2020, the Supreme People's Court held a press conference and released the "China Environmental Resources Trial (2019)" (White Paper), "China Environmental Justice Development Report (2019)" (Green Paper), typical case of environmental resources of the People's Court in 2019.
In order to comprehensively show the situation of the people's court's environmental resource trial work in 2019, the Supreme People's Court released the annual typical cases for the first time on the basis of the continuous release of China's environmental resource trial white paper. The 40 cases released this time have distinctive features of judicial protection of environmental resources. The specific performance is in the following three aspects:
First, it embodies the characteristics of the environmental resource trial cases.
Second, it embodies the professional requirements of environmental resource trials.
The third is to embody the functional role of environmental resource trials.
The two environmental public interest litigations (EPIL) filed by China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (CBCGDF) were selected as the typical cases of environmental resources of the People's Court in 2019.
The two typical cases are as follows: 31. China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (CBCGDF) v. Shenzhen Sumei Environmental Protection Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. in an air pollution liability dispute case. 32. China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (CBCGDF) v. Guizhou Hongde Real Estate Co., Ltd. adjacent to the right of way dispute.
This is following the 2017 CBCGDF Tengger Desert Environmental Pollution Series Case, the nation ’s first “toxic running tracks” public interest lawsuit and in 2018, CBCGDF v. Qinhuangdao Fangyuan Packaging Glass Co., Ltd.'s civil public interest litigation, CBCGDF's two more environmental public interest litigation (EPIL) cases were selected as the typical cases of environmental resources of the People's Court in 2019.
Case 31. China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (CBCGDF) Sued Shenzhen Sumei Environmental Protection Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. Air Pollution Liability Dispute Case
1. Basic facts and background of the case.
Shenzhen Sumei Environmental protection Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sumei company) has been selling automotive products on Taobao since September 2015. Its main products are so-called “annual inspection artifact” products that can make an annual inspection of vehicle exhaust fake. More than 30,000 pieces of the products have been sold, and the sales amount is about 3 million RMB. China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (CBCGDF) filed an environmental civil public interest lawsuit, requesting a decree: Sumei company and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Taobao company) apologize; Sumei company stops production of illegal products involved in the case; Taobao company stops providing third-party trading platform services to Sumei company; The two parties shall jointly and severally bear the cost of ecological environment restoration of 152 million RMB (the specific amount shall be subject to the appraisal report) and the related costs incurred by CBCGDF in the litigation.
2. The verdict result.
According to the first instance of Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province, Sumei company’s propaganda products can evade the annual inspection of motor vehicles by means of fraud, abet or assist some motor vehicle owners to carry out infringement acts, and damage the social public interests. Taobao company has fulfilled its obligation of examination and taken measures of deletion in time, without joint and several liabilities. In view of the objective existence of environmental pollution, according to 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, the judgment is as follows: Sumei company should apologize to the public in the national media (the content needs to be reviewed by the court); Sumei Company should pay CBCGDF 150,000 RMB of attorney fees, travel expenses, necessary expenses of relevant staff, etc; In addition, it will compensate 3.5 million RMB in total for the repair of air pollution environment (the money is dedicated to the treatment of air pollution environment in China). The second instance of Zhejiang Higher People’s Court upheld the original judgment.
3. Typical significance.
This case is a civil public interest litigation case related to air pollution brought by social organizations and has been selected as one of the top ten influential litigation cases in China in 2019. In this case, Sumei company sells the so-called “annual inspection artifact” which makes the annual inspection of motor vehicle exhaust muddle through, resulting in the increase of air pollutants in unspecified areas and environmental pollution, so it shall bear environmental tort liability. Under the circumstances of difficult identification, the people’s court reasonably determined the cost of ecological environment restoration in combination with such factors as the scope and degree of environmental damage caused by pollution, the scarcity of ecological environment, the difficulty and ease of ecological environment restoration, the operating cost of pollution prevention equipment, the benefits obtained by the defendant due to the infringement and its process and degree, etc., which also conforms to the regulations 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. At the same time, the judgment of this case pointed out that Taobao company, as an information platform service provider, should strengthen the information management of the network platform and establish an effective retrieval and supervision system. The trial of this case, in terms of the reasonable determination of the cost of ecological environment restoration, has guiding significance for the handling of such cases and is also conducive to urging the sales enterprises and network platforms to establish the due awareness of ecological environment protection responsibility in the internet era.
Original Chinese articles:
http://www.cbcgdf.org/NewsShow/4857/12386.html
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/rkoqRqSqr0uuyBK6KwDXAA
By / Maggie, Xue Tongtong