Chinese NGOs pay whopping legal fee after failed lawsuit against polluting enterprises
A local court in Jiangsu province has ordered two environmental NGOs to pay a fee of 1.89million RMB after the latter lost a lawsuit against three polluting chemical companies.
According to a verdict released by Changzhou Intermediate People’s Court on Jan. 25,Friends of Nature (FON) and China Biodiversity Conservation and Green DevelopmentFoundation (CBCGDF) must pay the legal fees resulting from the lawsuit, while theirdemands for a public apology and environmental restoration fee from the companies havebeen denied.
As the first unsuccessful environmental public interest litigation case after China’s revisedEnvironmental Protection Law took effect in 2015, the case has stirred up fierce debateamong the public and scholars alike, with many worrying that the high fee may “dampenthe enthusiasm of environmental NGOs to supervise polluting enterprises.” The newenvironmental law allows NGOs to sue polluters on behalf of victims.
Currently, the second lawsuit is ongoing.
Vague liability
The two Beijing-based organizations filed the lawsuit against Jiangsu ChanglongChemicals Co. Ltd., Jiangsu Huada Chemical Group Co. Ltd. and Changzhou Chang-YuChemical Co. Ltd. in April 2016.
According to their indictment, the companies used to occupy a site adjacent to aChangzhou Foreign Language School (CFLS) campus. The companies dumped solid wastein the area, which allegedly caused illnesses, including eczema, bronchitis and evenleukemia among students at CFLS. CBGCDF and FON reportedly sued the companies for370 million RMB for the restoration of the local environment.
An official investigation estimated that the three companies had polluted over 70,000square meters in the area, dumping heavy metals and organic compounds. However,restoration work was not completed by the time the school opened its campus,CRIENGLISH.com reported.
Changzhou Intermediate People’s Court did not agree with the organizations’ claims,announcing that “the goal of the lawsuit is gradually being achieved through soilrestoration being conducted by the local government, and the risk of pollution is nowunder control.” Additionally, the court noted, the three companies “cannot replace thegovernment’s role in the restoration process.”
“The distribution of legal liability is a crucial part of the case. The local government andcompanies’ [roles] in the environmental restoration process need to be discussed,” saidTang Dawei, a research fellow at Wuhan University, at a seminar held by CBGCDF on Feb. 7.
Wang Xi, a law expert from Shanghai Jiaotong University, told CBGCDF that the localgovernment should try to extract the restoration fee from the polluting enterprises inorder to alleviate taxpayers’ burden. Wang also recommended that the government carryout an investigation before reclaiming the land.
Some scholars have drawn a comparison between this incident and the Love Canal scandalin the U.S. in the late 1970s, which led to the launch of the U.S. government’s Superfundprogram. The Superfund program determines the responsibility of polluters and helpswith the clean-up of sites contaminated by hazardous substances and pollutants.
“I think the companies’ legal liability in this case is vague. China also needs a system toidentify polluters and compel them to pay restoration fees and clean up polluted sites,” aBeijing-based lawyer told People’s Daily Online.
Whopping legal fees
Unable to pay the high legal fees, CBGCDF is planning to raise funds online to cover thecosts, Thepaper.cn reported.
In response to public concern over the legitimacy of the massive legal cost, ChangzhouIntermediate People’s Court said the legal fee was determined in accordance with relevantrules and regulations, Legal Daily reported.
“The court calculated the legal fee according to standards for civil interest litigation.However, this case falls into the category of public interest litigation, so the legal costshould be reduced or even waived,” one anonymous expert argued at the seminar.
According to an interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several IssuesConcerning the Application of Law in the Conduct of Environmental Civil Public InterestLitigation, which was revised in 2015, plaintiffs in such cases can lawfully apply to defer orreduce legal costs.
“The legal fee is too high for any social organization, and we’ll keep appealing,” promisedGe Feng, director of legal and policy affairs at FON.
(For the latest China news, Please follow People's Daily on Twitter and Facebook)
(Web editor: Kou Jie, Bianji)
原文链接:人民网
Chinese NGOs pay whopping legal fee after failed lawsuitagainst polluting enterprises
http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0208/c90000-9175499.html