China Environmental and Resource Adjudication (2019)

中国环境资源审判(2019年)

【法宝引证码】

Issuing authority： Supreme People's Court
Date issued： 05-01-2020

China Environmental and Resource Adjudication (2019)		中国环境资源审判（2019年）
Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China.		中华人民共和国最高人民法院
May 2020		二〇二〇年五月
Table of Contents		目录
Foreword		前言
I. Fair Trial of Cases for Better Environment and Efficient Use of Resources.		一、依法公正审理案件，促进生态环境改善和资源高效利用
1. Hearing of Environmental Pollution Cases		（一）依法审理环境污染防治案件
2. Trial of Ecological Cases		（二）依法审理生态保护案件
3. Handling of Cases Concerning Development and Utilization of Resources.		（三）依法审理资源开发利用案件
4. Hearing of Climate Change Cases		（四）依法审理气候变化应对案件
5. Handling of Cases Concerning Environmental Governance and Services.		（五）依法审理生态环境治理与服务案件
II. A Stronger EPIL System to Safeguard the National and Public Interests		二、加强环境公益诉讼，维护国家利益和社会公共利益
1. Improvement in the Normative System		（一）健全规范体系
2. Proper Trial of EPIL Cases in Accordance with the Law		（二）依法审理案件
3. Innovation in Sentence Enforcement		（三）创新审判执行方式
4. Improvement in Supporting Mechanisms		（四）完善配套机制
III. Practicing Green Development to Support Party and State Strategy		三、贯彻绿色发展理念，服务新时代党和国家工作大局
1. Contributing to the “ Uphill Battle for Prevention and Control of Pollution”		（一）助力污染防治攻坚战
2. Promoting Environmental Protection in Key River-basins and Regions		（二）推进重点流域区域治理
3. Supporting High-quality Economic Development		（三）服务经济高质量发展
IV. Modernization of Environmental Adjudication System and Capacities through Institutional Innovation		四、坚持体制机制创新，推进环境审判制度体系和审判能力现代化
1. Building of Specialized Institution of Adjudication 40		（一）推进专门审判机构建设
2. Progress in Specialized and Converged Adjudication of Environmental and Resource cases		（二）推进建立归口审理机制
3. Development of Centralized Jurisdiction		（三）推进建立集中管辖机制
4. Development of Mechanism for Coordination and Cooperation		（四）推进建立协调联动机制
5. Development in Alternative Dispute Resolutions		（五）推进建立多元解纷机制
V. Improvement in Judicial Service to Respond to the Diverse Needs from the Public		五、提升司法保障水平，回应人民群众多元司法需求
1. Capacity Building for Judicial Team		（一）加强队伍建设
2. Theoretical Research		（二）深化理论研究
3. Improving Efficiencies for Public Services		（三）完善便民措施
4. Expanding the Scope of Public Participation		（四）扩大公众参与
5. Promoting International Cooperation		（五）推进国际合作
Looking to the Future		展望
Annex 1		附录一
Annex 2		附录二
Annex 3		附录三
Annex 4		附录四
Foreword		前言
In 2019, we judges from people's courts at all levels conscientiously studied Xi Jinping's Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in the New Era, especially Xi Jinping's Thought on Ecological Civilization, and thoroughly implemented the spirit of the 19th CPC National Congress and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Plenary Sessions of the 19th CPC Central Committee. We always borne in mind the overall plan for balanced economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological progress and the coordinated advancement of the Four-Pronged Comprehensive Strategy and stayed committed to the people-centered philosophy of development. We took the specialization of environmental and resources adjudication as leverage for the modernization of the national system and capacity for environmental governance. Driven by reform and innovation, we drew in the strength of adjudication to make progress in all areas.		2019年，各级人民法院认真学习习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想特别是习近平生态文明思想，深入贯彻党的十九大以及十九届二中、三中、四中全会精神，紧紧围绕统筹推进“五位一体”总体布局和协调推进“四个全面”战略布局，牢牢把握以人民为中心的发展思想，始终坚持以环境资源审判专门化为抓手，以推动实现国家环境治理体系和治理能力现代化为目标，以改革创新为动力，充分发挥审判职能作用，各项工作取得新发展。
We tried cases fairly in accordance with the law to improve the environment and promote the efficient use of resources. We adhered to the principle of “no penalty without a law”, and implemented the criminal policy of combining leniency with stringency. We introduced harsher punishment for those polluting the environment and destroying the ecosystem, which provided an effective deterrent to potential polluters, and safeguarded the security of the country's environment and natural resources. In 2019, judges across the country handled at first instance 39,957 criminal environmental cases of all types with 36,733 concluded, and handed down sentencing to114, 633 criminals. The number of cases heard and concluded increased by 50.9% and 43.4% respectively year on year. We followed the principle that polluters should be legally liable for environmental damage and shall make full compensation to parties interested. We held those who had polluted the environment and destroyed the ecosystem for civil liability in accordance with the law, promoted rational development and utilization of natural resources, and effectively protected people's personal, property and environmental rights and interests. A total of 202,671 civil environmental cases were dealt with at the first instance across the country with 189,120 concluded, up 5.6% and 3.5% respectively year on year. We gave full play to the preventive role of administrative adjudication to supervise administrative organs to perform their regulatory duties in a timely manner under the law. In 2019, 47,588 administrative environmental cases were heard at first instance, of which 42,078 cases were concluded, up 12.7% and 0.8% respectively year on year.		依法公正审理案件，促进生态环境改善和资源高效利用。坚持罪刑法定原则，贯彻宽严相济刑事政策，加大对污染环境、破坏生态犯罪行为的惩治力度，有效威慑潜在污染者，维护国家生态环境和自然资源安全。2019年，全国法院共受理各类环境资源刑事一审案件39957件，审结36733件，判处罪犯114633人，收结案数同比2018年分别上升50.9%、43.4%。严格贯彻损害担责、全面赔偿原则，依法追究污染环境、破坏生态行为人的民事责任，促进自然资源的合理开发利用，切实保障人民群众的人身、财产和环境权益。全国法院共受理各类环境资源民事一审案件202671件，审结189120件，同比分别上升5.6%、3.5%。充分发挥行政审判预防功能，监督行政机关依法及时履行监管职责。全年受理各类环境资源行政一审案件47588件，审结42078件，同比分别上升12.7%、0.8%。
In the meanwhile, we strengthened environmental public interest litigation (EPIL) and safeguarded national and public interests. We developed and issued judicial interpretations for the hearing of environmental and ecological damage compensation lawsuits, released model cases, improved trial procedures, and set up uniform standards for adjudication. We properly dealt with the EPIL cases brought by NGOs and prosecutors, and the ecological damage compensation lawsuits brought by the provincial and municipal governments and their designated departments and institutions in accordance with the law. Guided by restorative justice, we identified creative ways to implement judgement and improve funding management, technical assistance and other supporting mechanisms to ensure timely and effective environmental restoration. In 2019, courts across the country heard a total of 179 EPIL cases brought by NGOs, and concluded 58 of them, an increase of 175.4% and 262.5% respectively year on year. We also heard 2,309 EPIL cases brought by prosecutors with 1,895 concluded, an increase of 32.9% and 51.4% respectively year on year. Among all the EPIL cases lodged by prosecutors, 312 were civil EPIL cases with 248 concluded, 1,642 were environmental criminal cases with add-on civil public interest proceedings with 1,370 concluded, and 355 were administrative EPIL cases with 277 concluded. 49 cases concerning ecological and environmental damage were heard with 36 concluded, up 145% and 350% respectively year on year. To be more specific, 28 were judicial confirmation cases with 23 concluded, and 21 were ecological and environmental damage compensation cases with 13 concluded.		加强环境公益诉讼，维护国家利益和社会公共利益。制定出台审理生态环境损害赔偿诉讼司法解释，发布典型案例，完善审判程序，统一裁判标准。依法妥善审理社会组织、检察机关提起的环境公益诉讼和省、市地级政府及其指定的部门、机构提起的生态环境损害赔偿诉讼。坚持恢复性司法理念，探索创新审判执行方式，完善资金管理、技术辅助等各项配套保障机制，确保生态环境得到及时有效修复。2019年，全国法院共受理社会组织提起的环境民事公益诉讼案件179件，审结58件，同比分别上升175.4%、262.5%。受理检察机关提起的环境公益诉讼2309件，审结1895件，同比分别上升32.9%、51.4%，其中环境民事公益诉讼案件312件，审结248件；环境刑事附带民事公益诉讼1642件，审结1370件；环境行政公益诉讼案件355件，审结277件。受理生态环境损害赔偿案件49件，审结36件，同比分别上升145%、350%，其中生态环境损害赔偿司法确认案件28件，审结23件；生态环境损害赔偿诉讼案件21件，审结 13件。
We practiced the concept of green development and continued to serve the overall work of the Party and the State in the new era. We upheld the most stringent institutional arrangements and the strictest rule of law to protect the environment, and used criminal, civil and administrative remedies to win the three major battles against air, water and soil pollution. Bearing in mind the integrity and inter-connectedness of the environment, we promoted the development of judicial cooperation areas for environmental and resource protection, continuously deepened the judicial cooperation mechanism in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, and kick-started the building of a judicial cooperation mechanism in the Yellow River Basin. We also strengthened the judicial protection of the environment in key areas such as the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, the Grand Canal Cultural Belt, Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area, and nature protected areas mainly consisting of national parks. We put into practice the concept of “green is gold” and sought to balance high-quality economic development with high-level environmental protection. We strove to create a stable, fair, transparent, green and law-based business environment, support the upgrading and transformation of traditional industries and the development of emerging eco-friendly and energy-efficient industries, and promote greener ways of production and living.		贯彻绿色发展理念，服务新时代党和国家工作大局。坚持用最严格制度最严密法治保护生态环境，综合运用刑事、民事、行政三种责任方式，助力打赢蓝天、碧水、净土三大污染防治攻坚战。坚持从生态环境整体性和系统性着眼，大力推进环境资源司法协作区建设，持续深化长江经济带司法协作机制，着手构建黄河流域司法协作机制，加强对京津冀地区、大运河文化带、粤港澳大湾区和以国家公园为主体的自然保护地等重点区域环境司法保护。践行绿水青山就是金山银山理念，统筹协调推进经济高质量发展与生态环境高水平保护，努力营造稳定、公平、透明、绿色的法治化营商环境，支持传统产业升级转型和环保节能新兴产业发展，推动形成绿色生产方式和生活方式。
We carried on with systemic and institutional innovation to modernize the system and capacity for environmental adjudication. By the end of 2019, 1,353 specialized environmental judicial institutions have been set up nationwide, including 513 environmental tribunals for environment and resources (26 in high people's courts, 118 in intermediate people's courts and 368 in grass-roots people's courts), 749 collegial benches and 91 people's courts. A total of 23 high people's courts adopted a “two-in-one” or “three-in-one” civil, administrative and criminal trial mode for environmental cases. We worked towards centralized jurisdiction beyond administrative divisions when it came to cases concerning river basins or ecological functional areas, and explored the mechanism of centralized cross-provincial jurisdiction. We reached out to establish coordination with prosecution, public security, and administrative law enforcement while maintaining judicial impartiality. The potential of non-litigation dispute resolution mechanisms such as administrative mediation, administrative adjudication and people's mediation, was maximized, and the coordination between litigation dispute resolution mechanisms such as judicial confirmation and the non-litigation ones was strengthened. A multi-stakeholder dispute resolution mechanism was eventually put in place to form a synergy for environmental protection.		坚持体制机制创新，推进环境资源审判制度体系和审判能力现代化。截至2019年底，全国共有环境资源专门审判机构1353个，其中环境资源审判庭513个（包括26家高级人民法院，118家中级人民法院及368家基层人民法院），合议庭749个，人民法庭91个；共有23家高级人民法院实行环境资源民事、行政、刑事案件“二合一”或“三合一”归口审理模式。积极推进建立以流域等生态系统或者生态功能区为单位的跨行政区划集中管辖，探索跨省级行政区划集中管辖机制。坚持裁判中立的前提下，推进建立与检察机关、公安机关、行政执法部门的外部协调联动机制。充分发挥行政调解、行政裁决、人民调解等非诉讼纠纷解决机制的作用，加强司法确认等诉讼和非诉讼纠纷解决机制的衔接配合，构建多元解纷机制，形成环境保护合力。
We elevated the level of judicial safeguard in response to people's diverse needs for judicial services. We strengthened the building of ideological, political, professional capacities of the judiciary to make it incorruptible. We cemented the concept of modernized environmental justice by creating a well-trained team for environmental and resource adjudication. We expanded the role of the Research Center for Environmental and Resources Justice at the Supreme People's Court to consolidate the bases for theoretical research and practice, and worked to translate the results of judicial research into practices. We took measures to ensure people could access and benefit from justice, such as building smart courts to make it easier to lodge lawsuits, strengthening circuit trials, and providing legal aid in accordance with the law. Public participation was further encouraged as we subjected ourselves to the supervision of the NPC deputies and CPPCC National Committee members, and enhanced judicial transparency through open trials and issuing white papers and model cases. We strictly implemented the system of people'sassessors, and protected the public's rights to information, participation and supervision. We deepened cooperation with other countries and international organizations, expanded channels of communication, and enhanced mutual understanding by organizing international seminars, visits, exchanges, training, and comparative studies of cases. As our efforts paid off, we have seen a growing influence of China's environmental justice at the global level.		提升司法保障水平，回应人民群众多元司法需求。加强思想政治、业务能力和廉政能力建设，树牢现代环境司法理念，打造一支高素质的环境资源审判队伍。充分发挥最高人民法院环境资源司法研究中心的作用，加强理论研究基地和实践基地建设，推动理论研究和司法实践成果的积极转化。健全司法便民利民惠民举措，依托智慧法院建设积极畅通诉讼渠道，大力加强巡回审判，依法开展司法救助。深化公众参与，主动接受代表委员监督，通过庭审公开、发布白皮书和典型案例等多种方式推进司法公开，严格落实人民陪审员制度，最大限度保障公众知情权、参与权和监督权。深化与有关国家和国际组织的合作，拓展交流渠道，通过组织国际研讨会、参观交流、主题培训和案例比较研究等多种方式，增进相互了解，提升中国环境司法的国际影响力。
I. Fair Trial of Cases for Better Environment and Efficient Use of Resources.		一、依法公正审理案件，促进生态环境改善和资源高效利用
1. Hearing of Environmental Pollution Cases		（一）依法审理环境污染防治案件
We tried cases concerning discharges of toxic and harmful substances into air, water, soil and the ocean and other environmental media, thus damaging the environmental media and the ecosystem services. We also dealt with cases causing damage to the personal health and property of individuals or the public, including environmental pollution cases, cases concerning toxic and harmful substance, and energy contamination cases. We always prioritized prevention by issuing injunctions in time in accordance with the law, drew on the strength of administrative litigation, and prevented environmental damage from occurring and expanding.		依法审理向大气、水、土壤和海洋等环境介质排放有毒有害物质、其他物质及能量，损害环境介质及其生态系统服务功能，以及导致个人或公众的人身健康、财产受损而产生的案件，包括环境介质污染案件、有毒有害物质污染案件、能量污染案件。注重预防优先，依法及时适用禁止令，充分发挥行政诉讼的作用，防止环境损害结果的发生和扩大。
Crimes of polluting the air, water, soil, the ocean and other environmental media were severely punished. Courts across the country heard a total of 3,500 cases of environmental pollution crimes and concluded 3,030. In the case where Ruan Zhenghua, and Tian Jinfang and Wu Changshun were sued for environmental pollution, the defendant, Tian Jinfang was fully aware that Ruan Zhenghua was not qualified to dispose of hazardous waste, yet she still asked him to help handle the solid industrial waste. Wu Changshun, knowing the solid waste was highly polluting, still unlawfully dumped the solid industrial waste at the request of Ruan Zhenghua, causing damage to the soil and water. The Defendants were sentenced to imprisonment of varying 2 to 3 years, and subject to a probation order and fines ranging from 50,000 yuan to 20,000 yuan. Tian Jinfang and Ruan Zhenghua were prohibited from engaging in activities related to environmental protection and waste materials recycling during the probation period. The handling of the case has not only clarified the liability of the producers and handlers of hazardous waste, speaks volume about the commitment of the people's court to severely punish the crime of unlawful disposal of hazardous waste while following the principle of prevention. The decision to forbid defendants from engaging in related business within a certain period of time under the injunction has given full play to the deterrence and punishment functions of criminal penalty. We thoroughly implemented the policy of banning the import of "foreign solid waste", and cracked down on related crimes such as waste smuggling and illegal disposal of imported waste. Courts across the country heard a total of 287 criminal cases of waste smuggling with 227 concluded, and heard and concluded 2 criminal cases of illegal disposal of imported solid waste. In the case of waste smuggling by 18 people, including Tian Changrong and Luo Wei, before the Intermediate People's Court of Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture , Yunnan Province, Tian Changrong and others set up a station in Xiaomengla, Myanmar, to purchase plastic waste , scrap metal, etc, and arranged for people living on the border to smuggle waste into the country through a hidden path to make a profit. The court held that Tian Changrong and others violated the law by circumventing the customs supervision, transporting overseas solid waste into the country and selling it. The offence was particularly serious and constituted the punishable crime of smuggling waste. The case is concerned with smuggling solid waste into the country across the border. The court resorted to penalty to severely crack down on illegal smuggling of solid waste into the country, which has not only deterred the potential offenders but also demonstrated China's commitment to combating the crime of illegal import and disposal of "foreign waste".		严惩污染大气、水、土壤和海洋等环境介质的犯罪行为。全国法院共受理环境污染罪案件3500件，审结3030 件。贵州省清镇市人民法院审理的田锦芳、阮正华、吴昌顺污染环境一案中，田锦芳在明知阮正华无处置危险废物资质的情况下，依然让其帮助处置固体工业废物，而吴昌顺明知固体废物污染环境，仍应阮正华的要求，将固体工业废物进行非法倾倒和处置，造成周边土壤和水体环境污染。法院经审理以污染环境罪判处田锦芳、阮正华、吴昌顺有期徒刑三年至二年不等，并适用缓刑，并处罚金5万元至2万元不等，同时，禁止田锦芳、阮正华在缓刑考验期内再从事环境保护、废旧物资回收经营的相关活动。该案的处理，既明晰了危险废物生产者和处理者的责任，体现了人民法院对于当前屡禁不止的非法处置危险废物犯罪行为从严惩处的决心和态度，又注重适用预防原则，通过禁止令的方式禁止被告人在一定期限内继续从事相关业务，发挥了刑罚的预防和惩治功能。全面贯彻禁止从国外进口“洋垃圾”的政策，严厉打击走私废物、非法处置进口废物等相关犯罪行为。全国法院共受理走私废物罪案件287件，审结227件；受理非法处置进口的固体废物罪案件2件，审结2件。云南省西双版纳州中级人民法院审理的田昌蓉、罗伟等18人走私废物一案中，田昌蓉等人在缅甸小勐拉设立站点收购废塑料、废金属等物品，并联系安排边民通过边境小道将废物走私运输至国内进行销售牟利。法院经审理认为，田昌蓉等人违反法律法规，逃避海关监管，将境外固体废物运输进境销售，情节特别严重，构成走私废物罪，依法应予以惩处。该案系跨越国边境走私固体废物入境案件。法院运用刑罚手段严厉打击非法走私固体废物入境行为，不仅有利于遏制此类犯罪的发生，同时也体现了我国坚持打击非法进口、处置“洋垃圾”犯罪行为的坚定决心。
We also tapped into the potential of environmental private interest litigation in safeguarding people's personal and property rights and interests. Courts across the country heard a total of 1,976 civil environmental cases and concluded 1,352 of them. In the case of Meng Deyu v. Tianjin Dongnan Xincheng City Construction Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dongnan Xincheng ), Meng Deyu purchased a residential unit developed and built by Dongnan Xincheng. Meng later took the company to court on the grounds that his home life was seriously affected by the noise generated from the heating pipes and pumps set up below the apartment building by the company and the testing result showed that the level of the indoor noise exceeded the standard at night. Jinnan District People's Court held that, under the Code for Residential Design GB50096-1999, public electrical rooms such as water pump room, cooling and heating equipment room, transformer and distribution room, etc., should not be built in the main building of the residence, nor should them be set up in the floor adjacent to the residents. When the above requirements cannot be met, measures should be taken to reduce and eliminate the noise. As the Defendant failed to take any measures as required by the Code to block the noise from the public electricity room, leading the level of noise to go beyond the limit stipulated in the "Community Noise Emission Standard". Therefore, the Defendant should bear the tort liability for noise pollution and was ordered to take measures to reduce the noises from the heating equipment and pipes involved in the case within a period of 5 months, and compensate Meng Deyu for the loss. In this case, in determining the liability of the Defendant, the court also took into account the length of time for transformation and its impact on Meng Deyu's home life. Therefore, it set a time limit for the transformation to guarantee effective and speedy implementation of the judgment. It has set a precedent for similar cases.		发挥环境私益诉讼作用，切实维护人民群众人身和财产权益。全国法院共受理环境污染民事案件1976件，审结1352件。天津市津南区人民法院审理的孟德玉诉天津东南新城城市建设投资有限公司（以下简称东南新城公司）噪声污染责任纠纷一案中，孟德玉购买了东南新城公司开发建设的住宅一套，因东南新城公司设置在住宅楼下的地下供热管道及供热泵发出的噪声严重干扰了孟德玉的生活导致该案诉讼，经检测该房屋夜间室内噪声超标。法院经审理认为，根据《住宅设计规范》GB50096-1999的相关规定，水泵房、冷热源机房、变配电机房等公共用电机房不宜设置在住宅主体建筑内，且不宜设置在与住户相邻的楼层内，在无法满足上述要求而贴邻设置时，应增加隔声减震处理。因东南新城公司未能依照上述规定对公共用电机房进行隔声减震处理，造成案涉房屋噪声排放标准高于《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》规定的排放限值，应承担噪声污染侵权责任，故判决东南新城公司在5个月的期间内对案涉供热设备及管道进行降噪改造，并赔偿孟德玉的损失。该案中，法院在认定侵权方责任的同时，考虑到改造时间及孟德玉的居住要求，限定了确切的改造期限，使裁判结果能得到更加有效的执行，为同类案件裁判提供了可资借鉴的思路。
We heard disputes over marine pollution in accordance with the law, and safeguarded the national marine security and protected the marine environment in the public interest. Courts across the country heard a total of 84 disputes over pollution in the sea and waters connected to the sea with 70 concluded, and tried 18 disputes over pollution caused by vessels with 13 concluded. In the case Shanghai Shengmin Ocean Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shengmin Co., Ltd.) v. Dalian Deli Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Deli Shipping Company), which was filed with the Shanghai Maritime Court, the ship "Haide Oil X" collided with a vessel in the waters near the D43 light float in the north channel of the Yangtze Estuary, resulting in damage to its cargo tank No. 3 on the right. About 77.53 tons of diesel oil leaked into the river. The incident was categorized as a general vessel-induced pollution accident. The Shanghai Maritime Search and Rescue Center sent Shengmin Company a SAR mission letter, requiring the company to send decontamination vessels in nearby waters to perform decontamination. Shengmin Company then sent three ships over for decontamination. Hoeverm Houshengmin Company and Deli Shipping Company failed to reach an agreement over the fees arising from emergency decontamination, and took the matter to court. The court held that Deli Shipping Company was the owner of the ship "Hyde Oil X"that had caused oil spill accident, and thus should be liable for pollution caused by the oil spill. Shengmin Company was qualified to provide oil spill clean-up service, and did perform decontamination in the oil spill accident. It had the right to require Deli Shipping Company to bear the reasonable costs arising from the decontamination process. The ruling has protected the legitimate rights and interests of third-party companies qualified to provide marine oil spill clean-up services in the emergency response to marine pollution caused by ship collisions and leaks, and provided judicial support for third-party companies in participating in marine pollution control.		依法审理海洋污染责任纠纷案件，切实维护国家海洋生态安全和人民群众海洋环境权益。全国法院共受理海上、通海水域污染损害责任纠纷84件，审结70件；受理船舶污染损害责任纠纷18件，审结13件。上海海事法院审理的上海晟敏海洋工程有限公司（以下简称晟敏公司）诉大连德利海运有限公司（以下简称德利海运公司）船舶污染损害责任纠纷一案中，德利海运公司的“海德油X”轮在长江口北槽航道D43灯浮附近水域与其他轮船发生碰撞，事故导致“海德油X”轮右3号货油舱破损，约77.53吨柴油泄漏入江，构成一般等级的船舶污染事故。上海海上搜救中心向晟敏公司发出搜救任务协调书，要求晟敏公司派遣附近水域待命的清污船舶到现场参与应急清污行动。晟敏公司接到指令后先后派遣3艘轮船参与清污作业。后晟敏公司与德利海运公司就案涉船舶污染事故应急清污费用未能协商解决，诉至法院。法院经审理认为，德利海运公司系漏油船“海德油X”轮的船舶所有人，应当承担因漏油导致的船舶污染损害赔偿责任。晟敏公司具备海上船舶溢油清除服务资质，并对案涉船舶漏油污染事故开展清污防污工作，产生了应急清污费用，有权要求德利海运公司承担由此产生的合理费用。该案的审理，保障了具有海上船舶溢油清除服务资质的第三方公司在应急处理因船舶碰撞、泄露等造成海洋、通海水域污染过程中的合法权益，为第三方公司参与海洋污染治理提供了司法支持。
We stressed the role of administrative litigation in environmental pollution prevention. We stepped up the adjudication of cases involving pollutant discharge permits and environmental information disclosure, urged administrative organs to perform their duties in accordance with the law and implemented the accountability system to ensure the delivery of environmental targets. Courts across the country heard 2,704 administrative cases involving environmental pollution and concluded 2,340. In the case tried at first instance by Tianjin Railway Transport Court and at second instance by Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court, Ni Enchun sued Tianjin Environmental Protection Bureau for failing to perform its administrative duties. Ni was exposed to radiation when he worked for Bridgestone (Tianjin) Tire Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bridgestone) and suffered from multiple myeloma ever since. Therefore, he brought a claim to confirm that the Tianjin Environmental Protection Bureau had failed to perform its regulatory duty to guarantee the safety of the radioisotope and radiation devices installed by Bridgestone Co., Ltd., The court held that, as the competent department responsible for supervising units that use X-ray devices, Tianjin Environmental Protection Bureau should have been aware of the enterprise 's plan to install X-ray devices, and should have strengthened the regulation over the enterprise when it applied for an administrative permits for the EIA report installing the X-ray device in 2009. However, Tianjin Environmental Protection Bureau was unaware that the enterprise was using X-ray device without getting checked till 2014. Tianjin Environmental Protection Bureau was found negligent of its duty. Therefore, it was confirmed that from 2009 to the end of 2013, Tianjin Environmental Protection Bureau failed to perform its supervisory and duties mandated by law when it came to Bridgestone's use of radiation devices. The judgement is important in a sense that it urged the competent authorities to perform their administrative duties in a timely and integrated manner in accordance with the law, and safeguarded the public interests and their environmental rights.		注重发挥行政诉讼对污染环境行为的预防作用。加强对污染物排放许可、环境信息公开等案件的审判工作，督促行政机关依法履行职责，落实环境保护目标责任制。全国法院受理涉环境污染行政案件2704 件，审结2340 件。天津铁路运输法院一审、北京市第四中级人民法院二审审理的倪恩纯诉天津市生态环境局不履行环保行政管理职责一案中，倪恩纯在普利司通（天津）轮胎有限公司（以下简称普利司通公司）的放射性岗位工作，患多发性骨髓瘤，故起诉请求确认天津市生态环境局对普利司通公司放射性同位素、射线装置的安全和防护未履行监督管理职责行政不作为违法。法院经审理认为，作为对使用射线装置的单位具有监管职责的部门，天津市生态环境局在2009年普利司通公司申请射线装置环境影响报告的行政许可时，就应当知道该企业有安装使用射线装置的计划，对该企业应该更加予以关注、加强监管。但直至2014年，天津市生态环境局都未发现该企业射线装置未经验收即使用的事实，监督管理上存在疏漏。故认定从2009年至2013年底，天津市生态环境局存在对普利司通公司使用放射装置未履行相应的法定监督管理职责的情形。该案的裁判，对促进行政机关依法、及时、全面履行行政职责，切实维护社会公共利益和人民群众环境权益具有积极作用。
2. Trial of Ecological Cases		（二）依法审理生态保护案件
We heard cases concerning the destruction of genetic resources, species, ecosystem diversity, landscape diversity and ecosystem services in accordance with the law. Ecological cases also include cases related to biodiversity conservation, landscape diversity conservation, key ecological area protection and ecological damage. We put into practice the notion of restoration when hearing cases. We sought for multiple restoration methods that serve the purpose of ecological protection while bearing in mind that priorities differ in restoring different environmental elements.		依法审理因破坏遗传（基因）、物种、生态系统多样性、景观多样性以及影响生态系统功能正常运行而产生的案件，包括生物多样性保护案件、景观多样性保护案件、重点生态区域保护案件和其他生态破坏案件。贯彻注重修复理念，立足不同环境要素的修复需求，探索适合生态环境保护要求的多元修复方式。
We strengthened the judicial protection of biodiversity. We focused on cases related to genetic diversity, species diversity, and ecosystem diversity so as to provide judicial protection of organisms (animals, plants, microorganisms) as well as their genes and habitats. We punished biodiversity crimes in accordance with the law. Courts throughout the country heard a total of 677 cases of illegal hunting and killing of endangered wildlife with 639 concluded, 1,644 cases of illegal purchasing, transporting and trading of endangered wildlife and related products with 1,449 concluded, 2,314 cases of illegal hunting with 2,265 concluded, 865 cases of illegal logging and destruction of plants under state protection with 835 concluded, 134 cases of illegally purchasing, transporting, processing and selling plants and related products under state protection with 133 concluded, 68 cases of obstructing animal and plant quarantine with 62 conclude, and 3,117 cases of illegal fishing of aquatic products with 3050 concluded. In the case of Zhang Jiuchang unlawfully felling protected plants tried by the People's Court of Wanzhou District, Chongqing, Zhang first bought a yew from a plantation for 400 yuan, and then went up the mountain alone to excavated a yew and transplanted it home. Later, he learned there was another yew somewhere, and went there alone again to excavate the plant. He was caught red-handed when he tried to hire someone to transport the plant home. The two yews involved in the case have died. The court found Zhang guilty of the crime of unlawfully felling national protected plants, as yew has been listed as a national first-class protected plant in China. However, Zhang's behavior of excavating and transplanting was different from conventional “felling”, and thus was less malicious and harmful to the society. Also, the suspect confessed to the crime and took the initiative to restore the environmental damage. All these elements considered, Zhang was sentenced to three years in prison with suspended execution of three years, and fined 20,000 yuan. The judgment was made based on the textual interpretation, the characteristics of the criminal act, its harmful consequences and protection of legitimate interests. Zhang's behavior of digging and transplanting yews was identified as felling, and the judgment has important guiding significance for determining the behavior of digging and transplanting endangered species of wild flora. We strengthened the protection of IP rights such as new varieties of plants, biological genetic resources and genomes. Courts across the country heard 38 cases, including disputes over contracts on new plant varieties, contracts on breeding new plant varieties, contracts for the transfer of the right to exploit new plant varieties, and contracts on licensing new varieties, and concluded 25 of them. In the case of Zhang Youquan and Zhang Mingge v. Fengjie Sales Department of Agricultural Technology Service Center at Huzhai Town, Peixian County, and Jiangsu Peixing Seed Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Peixing Company) before the Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province, in October 2007, Zhang Youquan and Zhang Minge applied to the Ministry of Agriculture for plant variety protection of "Lindao 16”, which has been afforded legal protection since the authorized in May 2013. Zhang Youquan and Zhang Minge later found that the seeds sold by Fengjie Sales Department and Peixing Company were the same variety of "Lindao 16". They decided that their rights to the new plant variety was violated and took the entities to court. Having had reviewed the report issued by the appraisal institution entrusted by the court, the court concluded that the seeds sold by Fengjie Sales Department and Peixing Company were the same rice variety of "Lindao 16" involved in the case, hence constituting a tort, and the two defendants should be liable for damages. The message send by the judgement is that no entity or individual may grow or sell the breeding materials of the authorized variety for commercial purposes without the permission of the owner of the variety right; it has also pointed out that the right to a new plant variety is an announced right which producers and operators in the same industry should be aware. The judgement has played a positive role in protecting and encouraging the cultivation and use of new plant varieties. We supervised administrative organs in accordance with the law and ensured that they performed their duties of biodiversity protection. Courts across the country heard 3,447 forestry administrative cases with 3,157 concluded, 344 fishery administrative cases with 324 conclude, and 722 water conservancy administrative cases with 585 concluded. In the case of Xiong Lijun and Zhang Qianliang v. Matang Office of Yueyang County (hereinafter referred to as Matang Office) before the People's Court of Quyuan Management District in Yueyang , Hunan Province, Xiong Lijun and Zhang Qianliang obtained the right to contract forestland involved in the case in March 2017, and planted a large number of European and American black poplars known as "ecological destroyers". Under the central environmental inspection, in May 2018, Yueyang County Environmental Protection Committee issued a supervision letter to Matang Office, requiring for the removal of the European and American black poplars that caused damage to the wetland ecosystem of Dongting Lake, and reparation of the damage. As Xiong and Zhang failed to remove the black poplars, in June 2018 Matang Office sent its staff to the contracted area to fell the poplars and cleared the forestland. Xiongand Zhang later brought a lawsuit to the court. The court held that the competent authorities was not mandated by law to have the black poplars cleared in large numbers, and hence the behavior was unauthorized administrative enforcement that was in violation of the legal procedures under the Administrative Enforcement Law. Therefore, the administrative organ was found guilty. The judgment focused on the inappropriateness of the administrative law enforcement procedure, which provides judicial guidance to improve the administrative enforcement.		加强生物多样性司法保护。重点审理遗传（基因）多样性保护案件、物种多样性保护案件和生态系统多样性保护案件，对生物（动物、植物、微生物）以及它们所拥有的基因和生存环境进行司法保护。依法惩治危害生物多样性犯罪行为。全国法院共受理非法猎捕、杀害珍贵、濒危野生动物罪案件677件，审结639件；受理非法收购、运输、出售珍贵、濒危野生动物及其制品罪案件1644件，审结1449件；受理非法狩猎罪案件2314件，审结2265件；受理非法采伐、毁坏国家重点保护植物罪案件865件，审结835件；受理非法收购、运输、加工、出售国家重点保护植物及其制品罪案件134件，审结133件；受理妨害动植物防疫、检疫罪案件68件，审结62件；受理非法捕捞水产品罪案件3117件，审结3050件。重庆市万州区人民法院审理的张久长非法采伐国家重点保护植物一案中，张久长先是以400元的价格购买了他人园场内的一株红豆杉，随后独自上山采挖红豆杉并雇人运回家里栽种。后又得知另一处有一株红豆杉，并独自前往采挖，在雇人运输中被查获。案涉两株红豆杉均已死亡。法院经审理认为，红豆杉系国家一级重点保护野生植物，张久长非法采伐两株野生红豆杉，构成非法采伐国家重点保护植物罪。考虑到张久长的采挖、移栽行为，相较于常见的砍伐，在主观恶性和社会危害程度上相对较小，及其到案后如实供述犯罪事实，并主动进行生态修复等因素，判处张久长有期徒刑三年，缓刑三年，并处罚金人民币二万元。该案基于文义解释、行为特征、危害后果和法益保护等方面的考量，将张久长采挖、移栽红豆杉的行为认定为采伐，其裁判对于采挖、移栽珍贵野生植物的行为定性有重要指导意义。加强植物新品种、生物遗传资源和基因等知识产权保护。全国法院共受理植物新品种合同纠纷、植物新品种育种合同纠纷、植物新品种申请权转让合同纠纷、植物新品种实施许可合同纠纷等案件38件，审结25件。江苏省南京市中级人民法院审理的张有全、张民阁诉沛县胡寨镇农业技术推广服务中心凤杰门市部（以下简称凤杰门市部）、江苏沛星种业有限公司（以下简称沛星公司）侵害植物新品种权纠纷一案中，张有全、张民阁于2007年10月向农业部申请“临稻16”植物新品种权保护，2013年5月获得授权，该植物新品种权处于有效的法律状态。其后，张有全、张民阁发现凤杰门市部销售、沛星公司生产及销售的种子与“临稻16”植物新品种是同一品种，认为侵害了其拥有的植物新品种权益，故诉至法院。法院通过审查其委托的鉴定机构出具的报告，最终认定凤杰门市部销售、沛星公司生产及销售的种子与案涉“临稻16”植物新品种是同一品种，构成侵权，应承担赔偿责任。该案裁判强调任何单位或者个人未经品种权所有人许可，不得为商业目的生产或者销售该授权品种的繁殖材料；同时亦指出植物新品种权是一项公示的权利，作为同领域的生产经营者应当给予相应的关注，对于保护与鼓励培育使用植物新品种有积极意义。依法监督行政机关切实履行生物多样性保护职责。全国法院共受理林业行政案件3447件，审结3157件；受理渔业行政案件344件，审结324件；受理水利行政案件722件，审结585件。湖南省岳阳市屈原管理区人民法院审理的熊利军、张前良诉岳阳县麻塘办事处（以下简称麻塘办事处）确认行政行为违法一案中，熊利军、张前良于2017年3月取得案涉林木林地承包权，并大量种植有“生态破坏者”之称的欧美黑杨。后经中央环保督查整治，2018年5月岳阳县生态环境保护委员会向麻塘办事处出具督办函，要求清除对洞庭湖区湿地生态造成破坏的欧美黑杨，并修复湿地生态。麻塘办事处在熊利军、张前良未自行清除的情况下，于2018年6月组织工作人员对两人承包范围内的杨树实施了砍伐等清除措施。熊利军、张前良诉至法院。法院经审理认为，行政机关在整治大面积种植欧美黑杨以致严重影响东洞庭湖自然保护区生态系统这一问题时，组织强制清除树木，没有提供职权依据，应认定为行政强制无职权，且违反了行政强制法规定的法定程序，故确认行政机关的行政行为违法。该案在判决中，明确指出行政执法程序的不当之处，为改进行政机关的执法行为提供了司法指导意见。
We enhanced the judicial protection of landscape diversity. We focused on cases concerning the protection of natural relics, cultural relics and other types of landscapes. We lent judicial protection to the aesthetic value and richness of landscapes and views within certain time and spatial dimensions. In the case of Hu Yanjun et al stealing and excavating ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs tried by the Intermediate People's Court of Anyang , Henan Province, Hu Yanjun et al repeatedly carried out excavations in the key protected areas, general protected areas and construction control zones in Yinxu site, and profited from the unlawful act. The court held that cultural relics were not only public resources, but also an integral part of environmental protection, and the behavior of destroying ancient cultural sites and tombs listed as cultural relics should be severely punished. Hu et al repeatedly carried out excavation at the ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs within the protected areas of Yinxu site, one of China's oldest and largest archeological sites, thus constituting the crime of illegal excavation of ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs. The Defendants shall bear criminal liability in accordance with the law. Cultural relics are of great value in science, culture, history, aesthetics, education, environment and so on. Once destroyed, it will be difficult to restore. The judgment of this case sends a strong signal that crimes as such will be severely punished, and helps raise the public awareness of cultural relics protection and deters the potential destruction of ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs.		加强景观多样性司法保护。重点审理涉自然遗迹保护、人文遗迹保护以及其他景观多样性保护案件，对一定时空范围内景观类型和景物品类数量的丰富性和美观度进行司法保护。河南省安阳市中级人民法院审理的户燕军等6人盗掘古文化遗址、古墓葬一案中，户燕军等伙同他人在全国重点文物保护单位殷墟遗址的重点保护区、一般保护区、建设控制地带内多次实施盗掘行为并获利。法院经审理认为，人文遗迹不仅属于社会公共资源，亦是环境保护不可分割的组成部分，破坏属于人文遗迹的古文化遗址和古墓葬，理应受到严惩。户燕军等人在全国重点文物保护单位殷墟遗址保护区范围内多次实施盗掘古文化遗址和古墓葬行为，构成盗掘古文化遗址、古墓葬罪，依法应当承担刑事责任。人文遗迹在科学、文化、历史、美学、教育、环境等方面具有极高的价值，一旦遭到破坏便很难恢复。该案判决体现了严厉打击相关犯罪行为的司法政策导向，对提高公众文物保护意识、震慑潜在的破坏古文化遗址和古墓葬行为具有典型意义。
We lent strong judicial protection to key ecological areas. We directed many resources to hear cases concerning the protection of key ecological areas such as nature reserves and shoreline areas. In the case of Luo Shenggui, Qiu Yuanmei and Zhou Yingjun illegally fishing for aquatic products heard by the People's Court of Hanshou County, Hunan Province, Luo Shenggui et al had been investigated for committing the crime of illegal fishing for aquatic products in 2017. However, from September 20 to 21, 2019, the same group of people caught 800 kilograms of fish using electric fishing in the waters near Yotou Ferry in the West Dongting Lake National Nature Reserve in Hunan Province. The court held that by fishing aquatic products in prohibited areas and using prohibited methods, Luo et al violated the law on the protection of aquatic resources. The circumstances were serious, and their acts constituted the crime of illegal fishing for aquatic products. The defendants were ordered to assume criminal liability, which has strengthened judicial protection of national nature reserves and other key areas, and effectively controlled illegal fishing. The judgment is of great significance in protecting the ecosystem of Dongting Lake and the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River. In the case of the contractual disputes between the retrial applicant Sandu Forest Farm in Fengdu County and the respondent Zhang Lichun which was tried by Chongqing Higher People's Court, Zhang and Sanfu Forest Farm in Fengdu County signed a "contract on qualification confirmation for bamboo shoot acquisition " in March 2006, agreeing that Zhang could do intermediate cuttings in the area under the jurisdiction of Jiayakou Management and Protection Station of Sanfu Forest Farm in Fengdu County, and the harvesting of bamboo shoots in the same area was exclusively contracted to Zhang Lichun. However, the forest involved in the case is located in the core area and buffer zone of Nantianhu Nature Reserve in Fengdu County. Considering that, Sanfu Forest Farm issued a notice to Zhang in June 2017 in the course of the performance of the contract, claiming that the contract was invalid for it violated the Contract Law and the Regulations on Nature Reserves. That is to say, Sanfu Forest Farm no longer wanted the contract to be performed. Zhang lodged a lawsuit, requesting confirmation of the validity of the "contract on qualification confirmation for bamboo shoot acquisition"and continuation of the performance. The court of retrial corrected the decisions at first and second instances that the relevant provisions of the Regulations on Nature Reserves were administrative norms. It decided that the contract involved in the case violated the prohibitive provisions of the Forest Law and the Regulations on Nature reserves. If the contract was found to be valid and continued to be performed, it would cause damage to the nature and the ecosystem , hence jeopardizing the public environmental interest. The court of retrial rejected the litigant's request to confirm the validity of the contract involved in the case and to continue to perform the contract. The judgement has emphasized the mandatory provisions that strictly prohibit any economic activities in the core areas and buffer zones within nature reserves, strengthening the protection of the pristine ecosystems in nature reserves.In the case of Jilin Hunchun Forestry Bureau v. Hunchun Animal Husbandry Administration Bureau (hereinafter referred to as Hunchun Animal Husbandry Bureau) and Hunchun Hulong Villagers Committee (hereinafter referred to as Hulong Village) before the People's Court of Hunchun City, the contested issue was whether Hulong Village, with the grassland ownership certificate, could continue to engage in animal husbandry within the nature reserve. The court held that the grassland involved in the case was included in the Hunchun National Nature Reserve. Under Article 18 of the Regulations on Nature Reserves, the land that has been designated as a national nature reserve is not allowed to be used for animal husbandry. Regardless of the legality of the grassland ownership certificate issued by Hunchun Animal Husbandry Bureau, the certificate should be revoked in accordance with the law. The judgement made it clear that the registration departments shall not register the contracting or management right for the woodlands and grasslands within nature reserves, and those already registered should be revoked. The judgement has sent a signal of strong judicial protection of the ecosystem and the environment of nature reserves.		加强重点生态区域司法保护。重点审理涉自然保护地、岸线区域等重点生态区域保护案件。湖南省汉寿县人民法院审理的罗圣桂、邱元妹、周应军非法捕捞水产品一案中，罗圣桂等人在2017年犯非法捕捞水产品罪被追究刑事责任后，于2019年9月20日-21日，再次在湖南西洞庭湖国家级自然保护区坡头轮渡附近水域，采取电捕鱼方式捕鱼800公斤。法院经审理认为，罗圣桂等人违反水产资源保护法规，在禁渔区、使用禁用的方法捕捞水产品，情节严重，其行为构成非法捕捞水产品罪。该案判决追究被告人的刑事责任，强化对国家级自然保护区等重点区域的司法保护，对于引导沿湖渔民的捕捞行为，有效遏制非法捕捞，保护洞庭湖乃至长江中下游流域的生态系统具有重要意义。重庆市高级人民法院审理的再审申请人丰都县三抚林场诉被申请人张理春合同纠纷一案中，张理春与丰都县三抚林场于2006年3月签订《竹笋收购资格确认合同》，约定张理春在丰都县三抚林场夹垭口管护站辖区进行间伐改造，前述区域竹林的竹笋采收独家承包给张理春。由于案涉采收竹笋的森林位于丰都县南天湖市级自然保护区内的核心区和缓冲区，合同履行过程中，丰都县三抚林场于2017年6月向张理春发出通知，主张上述合同因违反《合同法》《自然保护区条例》的效力性强制性规定而无效，合同不再履行。张理春起诉请求依法确认《竹笋收购资格确认合同》有效并继续履行合同。再审法院纠正了一、二审法院关于《自然保护区条例》相关规定为管理性规范的认定，认为案涉合同违反了《森林法》《自然保护区条例》的相关禁止性规定，如认定合同有效并继续履行，将对自然环境和生态造成破坏，损害环境公共利益，驳回了当事人关于确认案涉合同有效并继续履行的诉讼请求。该案裁判明确宣示在自然保护区核心区、缓冲区内严格禁止从事任何生产经营活动的效力性强制性规定，有利于强化对自然保护区内各种原生性生态系统的保护。吉林省珲春市人民法院审理的吉林省珲春林业局诉珲春市牧业管理局（以下简称珲春牧业局）及珲春市板石镇湖龙村村民委员会（以下简称湖龙村）草原行政登记一案中，关于湖龙村在拥有草原证的情况下是否可以继续在自然保护区范围内从事牧业的问题，法院经审理认为，案涉草地已被纳入珲春东北虎国家级自然保护区范围内，根据《自然保护区条例》第十八条规定，已被划为国家级自然保护区的土地，不允许作为牧业用地使用。无论珲春牧业局颁发案涉草原证是否合法，依法都应撤销。该案明确了对属于自然保护区内的林地、草原，登记确权部门不能进行承包权或经营权登记，已经登记的亦应予以撤销，展现了保护自然保护区生态环境的鲜明司法导向。
We also stepped up the adjudication of other types of ecological damage cases. We heard cases of ecological damage caused by alien species, overexploitation of groundwater, destruction of vegetation, indiscriminate capture and killing, mineral exploitation, engineering construction etc. In these cases, the environmental and biological elements were adversely affected or the ecosystem services were degraded. In the contractual dispute between Huang Zhenxiong and the People's Government of Qianlianghu Town, Junshan District, Yueyang City, heard by the Intermediate People's Court of Yueyang City, Hunan, the government of Qianlianghu Town and Huang Zhenxiong signed the contract on the management right of Caisang Lake in December 2013. Huang then divided the contracted Caisang Lake into the upper and lower reaches to grow lotus roots and farm crabs respectively. The two parties then had a dispute and signed the Supplementary Agreement to the Contract for the Management Right of Caisang Lake on November 10, 2016, agreeing that Huang would no longer plant additional tall crops in Caisang Lake (nor crops that mifgt affect the ecosystem). Also, Huang would be responsible for removing the seedlings and fruits of the tall crops from the past under the supervision of the government of Qianlianghu Town. In October 2017, the government of Qianlianghu Town served a notice on Huang to rescind the management right contract and its supplementary agreement so as to rectify the ecological damage as required by the environmental inspectors from the central, provincial and municipal governments. The government of Qianlianghu Town later sued to terminate the contract, but Huang countersued for compensation. Regarding the alleged loss Huang was suffering from removing the lotus roots, the court held that under Article 29 (6) of the Regulations on Wetland Protection and Management issued by the State Forestry Administration and Article 15 of the Regulations on Wetland Protection of Hunan Province, introducing alien species into wetlands was prohibited. Huang et al broke the law by growing lotus roots in Caisang Lake without the consent of the contractor.Therefore, his claim for compensation from the government of Qianlianghu Town should not be supported. The judgement made it clear that losses associated with introducing alien species without authorization will not be compensated, showcasing the concept of maintaining the balance of local ecosystems.		加强其他破坏生态案件的审理。依法审理因外来物种引入、地下水超采、植被破坏、乱捕滥杀、矿产开采、工程建设等行为导致环境要素、生物要素的不利改变或者生态系统功能退化的生态破坏案件。湖南省岳阳市中级人民法院审理的黄振雄诉岳阳市君山区钱粮湖镇人民政府（以下简称钱粮湖镇政府）承包合同纠纷一案中，钱粮湖镇政府与黄振雄于2013年12月订立了《采桑湖大湖经营权承包合同》，约定由黄振雄承包采桑湖大湖。承租后，黄振雄将承包的采桑湖分隔成上下两湖，分别种植莲藕和养殖螃蟹。后双方发生纠纷并于2016年11月10日签订《采桑湖大湖经营权承包合同补充协议》，协议约定黄振雄不再在采桑湖内实施任何高秆作物新增种植行为（其他影响生态环境的作物也不能种植），既往遗留的高秆作物种苗及孳生物在钱粮湖镇政府指导监督下由黄振雄负责清除。因中央、省市环保督查要求整改采桑湖生态破坏问题，2017年10月，钱粮湖镇政府向黄振雄送达解除《采桑湖经营权承包合同》及其补充协议的通知。后钱粮湖镇政府起诉要求解除合同，黄振雄反诉要求赔偿损失。法院经审理认为，关于黄振雄主张种植湖藕的损失问题，根据国家林业局发布的《湿地保护管理规定》第二十九条（六）项及《湖南省湿地保护条例》第十五条的规定，湿地内不得引进外来物种。黄振雄等人未征得发包方同意通过转包方式在采桑湖内引种湖藕系违法行为，故对其要求钱粮湖镇政府予以赔偿的请求不予支持。该案明确了擅自引进外来物种，即使存在损失亦不予赔偿，彰显了保护当地生态环境平衡的环境司法理念。
3. Handling of Cases Concerning Development and Utilization of Resources		（三）依法审理资源开发利用案件
We tried cases arising from the development and utilization of land, minerals and other natural resources that were closely related to the environmental protection and restoration, including cases of development and utilization of natural resources, cases of infringement on environmental rights and interests such as ventilation, lighting, overlooking, landscape, etc. We placed equal importance on the protection of resource ownership and the order of transaction as well as the rational development and utilization of resources and effective environmental restoration.		依法审理在土地、矿产等各类自然资源开发利用过程中产生的，与生态环境保护和修复密切相关的案件，包括自然资源开发利用案件，侵害通风、采光、眺望、景观等环境权益案件。在注重资源权属保护与交易秩序维护的基础上，兼顾资源的合理开发利用和生态环境的有效修复。
We enhanced the adjudication of cases concerning the development and utilization of natural resources. Crimes destroying natural resources were punished in accordance with the law to ensure the security of national resources. Courts across the country heard 3,970 criminal cases of illegal mining a with 3,271 concluded, 6,094 criminal cases of illegal seizure of agricultural land with 5,461 concluded, 7,939 criminal cases of indiscriminate felling of trees with 7,735 concluded, 209 criminal cases of illegal acquisition, transportation, illegal felling and indiscriminate felling of trees with 198 concluded. In the case of Fuzhou Yuanshun Stone Co., Ltd. and Huang Hengyou illegally occupying arable land before the People's Court of Minhou County, Fujian Province, the court held that the defendants took138.51 mu of forestland for mining and stone processing without the approval from the competent authorities, which constituted the crime of illegal occupation of farmland. Considering the fact that Huang restored the environment afterwards, the court handed down a lesser punishment in accordance with the law. Based on the circumstances of the criminal act and the remedial actions taken immediately afterwards, the judge decided to hand down a lesser punishment, which has both served the purpose of punishment and showcased the criminal policy of combining punishment with leniency and the principle that the degree of punishment shall be commensurate with the crime committed and the criminal responsibility to be borne by the offender. We heard civil cases in the development and utilization of resources in accordance with the law to promote the efficient use of resources. Courts across the country heard 1,103 cases concerning disputes over the right to use of construction land with 886 concluded, 50 cases of easement with 43 concluded, 129 cases of marine development and utilization with 108 concluded, 20 cases of water rights with 20 concluded, 558 cases of disputes over mining rights with 430 concluded, 59,295 cases of contractual disputes over power , water, gas and heat supply with 67,492 concluded, 9 contractual disputes over sino-foreign natural resources exploration and development with 2 concluded, and 11,707 disputes over contracts for agriculture, forestry, fishery and animal husbandry with 10,708 concluded. In the property damage case of Lanping Sanjiang Copper Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sanjiang Copper Company) v. Lanping Huiji Mining Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huiji company) before the People's Court of Lanping Bai and Pumi Autonomous County, Yunnan Province, the Huiji company and Sanjiang Copper Company were two mining companies in the upper and lower reaches of the Qingshui River Basin. The improper disposal of waste residue by Huiji Company at the upstream triggered a debris flow, causing great economic losses on the part of Sanjiang Copper Company. The court held that disasters that were preventable and insurmountable should not be deemed as circumstances beyond the control of man, and that losses caused by torrential rain did not necessarily constitutes a "force majeure event" that freed the defendant from liability. If the precipitation wasn't past the preventable threshold required by the state, it should be deemed as a preventable and controllable event, and the resulting losses weren't caused by force majeure. According to the investigation report of Lanping County Land and Resources Bureau on "6.07" debris flow in Qingshui River, Yingpan Town, Lanping County, the disaster was triggered by the improper disposal of waste residue from production by Huiji Company, which provided abundant loose material for the debris flow to happen. Therefore, Huiji company should bear the liability for compensation for the loss. In the course of the trial, the judge fully considered the role of the improper disposal of waste residue in causing natural disasters, and made it clear that natural disasters not beyond the threshold for prevention should be deemed preventable and controllable, hence not force majeure events. We properly handled administrative cases concerning registration and approval of the rights to natural resources, and promoted the improvement of the property rights regime for natural resources assets. Courts across the country heard a total of 29,107 land administrative cases with 25,945 concluded, 380 geological and mineral administrative cases with 346 concluded, 3,354 administrative resource cases with 2,829 concluded. In the case of Beihai Naizhi Marine Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Naizhi Company) v. Beihai Marine and Fisheries Bureau (hereinafter referred to as Beihai Marine Fisheries Administration) before the Beihai Maritime Court, Naizhi Company, without obtaining the right to use the sea area in accordance with the law, leveled its leased open land (which was actually a beach), and built a temporary wharf to transform it into a land area for the construction of a freezing factory. Beihai Marine and Fisheries Administration imposed an administrative penalty on the company, ordering it to restore the illegally occupied sea area to the original state and imposing a fine. Nizhi company appealed the decision to the court. The court held that the company illegally occupied the sea area and carried out reclamation activities in violation of the Law on the Use of Sea Area, and it was appropriate for Beihai Marine and Fisheries Bureau to impose an administrative penalty. The court rejected the claim of the company. With the rapid development of marine aquaculture, some organizations and individuals illegally occupy and even reclaim the sea without obtaining the right to use the sea, which has a serious impact on the marine environment and sustainable development. The handling of the case fully demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to protect the national coastline and marine environmental security with the strictest regime and the rule of law. It also gives full play to the service and guarantee function of environmental justice in promoting China's maritime power strategy .		加强自然资源开发利用案件审理。依法惩处破坏自然资源犯罪行为，保障国家资源安全。全国法院共受理非法采矿罪案件3970件，审结3271件；受理非法占用农用地罪案件6094件，审结5461 件；受理滥伐林木罪案件7939件，审结7735件；受理非法收购、运输盗伐、滥伐的林木罪案件209件，审结198件。福建省闽侯县人民法院审理的福州市源顺石材有限公司、黄恒游非法占用农用地一案中，法院认为被告单位及被告人未经林业主管部门审批，擅自占用林地138.51亩，用于超范围采矿、石料加工区，构成非法占用农用地罪。鉴于黄恒游案发后积极进行矿山生态环境恢复治理，法院依法从轻处罚。该案考虑违法犯罪行为情节及事后的积极修复行为予以从轻处罚，既达到惩罚的目的，又体现了宽严相济的刑事政策和罪责刑相适应的刑法原则。依法审理各类资源开发利用民事案件，促进资源高效利用。全国法院共受理建设用地使用权纠纷案件1103件，审结 886件；受理地役权案件50件，审结43件；受理海洋开发利用案件129件，审结108件；受理取水权案件20件，审结20件；受理矿业权纠纷案件558件，审结430件；受理供用电、水、气、热力合同纠纷案件59295件，审结67492件；受理中外合作勘探开发自然资源合同纠纷9件，审结2件；受理农业、林业、渔业、牧业承包合同纠纷案件11707件，审结10708件。云南省兰坪白族普米族自治县人民法院审理的兰坪三江铜业有限责任公司（以下简称三江铜业公司）诉兰坪汇集矿业有限公司（以下简称汇集公司）财产损害赔偿纠纷一案中，汇集公司与三江铜业公司属于清水河流域上下游的两家勘采矿公司。因上游汇集公司对废渣处置不当，为泥石流灾害的发生提供了条件，造成三江铜业公司巨大的经济损失。法院经审理认为，未超出人类预防能力限度的可预防、可克服的自然灾害不属于不可抗力，由暴雨引发的损失事故并不一定构成不可抗力的免责事由，若降雨量并未超过国家要求预防的标准，则属于可预防、可控制的灾害，由此造成的损失不属于不可抗力所致。根据《兰坪县国土资源局关于上报兰坪县营盘镇清水河“6.07”泥石流灾害调查的报告》认定，此次灾害形成的因素是由于汇集公司对生产的弃渣处置不当，为泥石流灾害的发生提供了充沛的物源条件，汇集公司应对损失承担相应赔偿责任。该案在审理过程中充分考虑了生产的弃渣处置不当在引发自然灾害中的作用，同时明确了自然灾害若未超过国家要求预防的标准，则属于可预防可控制的灾害，不属于不可抗力。妥善审理自然资源确权登记、审批等行政案件，促进健全自然资源资产产权制度。全国法院共受理涉土地行政案件29107件，审结25945件；受理涉地矿行政案件380件，审结346件；受理涉相关资源行政案件3354件，审结2829件。北海海事法院审理的北海市乃志海洋科技有限公司（以下简称乃志公司）诉北海市海洋与渔业局（以下简称北海海洋渔业局）海洋行政处罚一案中，乃志公司在未依法取得海域使用权的情形下，对其租赁的海边空地（实为海滩涂）进行平整，并建设临时码头，形成陆域，准备建设冷冻厂。北海海洋渔业局对此作出行政处罚，责令其退还非法占用海域，恢复海域原状，并处罚款。乃志公司对此不服诉至法院。法院经审理认为，乃志公司非法占用海域，实施围海、填海活动，违反《海域使用管理法》的相关规定，北海海洋渔业局作出行政处罚决定并无不当，判决驳回乃志公司的诉讼请求。随着海洋养殖业的迅速发展，一些单位和个人在未获得海域使用权的情况下，非法围海、占海甚至填海，对生态环境保护和可持续发展造成严重影响。该案的处理充分彰显了以最严格制度、最严密法治保护国家海岸线和海洋环境生态安全的决心，也发挥了环境司法对推进我国海洋强国战略的服务和保障功能。
We strengthened the adjudication of cases harming environmental rights and interests. We handled cases of infringing on environmental rights and interests such as ventilation, daylighting, overlooking and landscape in accordance with the law. We sought to promote the concept of “prioritizing protection and strengthening the conservation of inheritance” and achieve intergenerational equality in the protection of environmental rights and interests. In the case of Meng Yun and Li Yuefu v. Yunnan Copper Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Copper Real Estate Company) before the People's Court of Panlong District, Kunming City, Yunnan Province, Meng Yun and Li Yuefu sued Copper Real Estate Company for its project “Window of the Times” blocking the sunlight, ventilation and daylight for the plaintiffs' homes. The identification results showed that 1. The construction of "window of the Times" had no effect on ventilation 2. but it did block the sunlight and daylight for the plaintiffs' homes, violating the"Code for Planning and Design of Urban Residential Areas", "Code for Housing Design", "General Principles for Civil Building Design" and "Technical Provisions on Urban and Rural Planning and Management of Kunming City". The court held that in handling the dispute over the adjacent buildings blocking sunlight, the decision on whether the lighting and sunlight were blocked should be based on whether there was a violation of national engineering construction standards. The court then concluded that the Copper Real Estate Company should bear the liability of compensation. The case has provided inspiration for the handling of disputes over access to daylight and sunshine, i.e. determining whether there are obstructions interfering with daylight and sunlight or violations of national engineering construction standards and national standards on sunshine hours, or to what degree the shortening of sunshine hours constitutes an infringement .		加强侵害环境权益案件的审理。依法审理侵害通风、采光、眺望、景观等环境权益案件，体现了保护优先、强化传承的理念，促进代内和代际之间的环境权益平等保护。云南省昆明市盘龙区人民法院审理的孟筠、李曰福诉云南铜业房地产开发有限公司（以下简称铜业房地产公司）相邻采光、日照纠纷一案中，孟筠、李曰福诉称铜业房地产公司建设的“时代之窗”楼盘对其房屋的采光、通风、日照产生了影响。经鉴定确认，1.“时代之窗”建设行为对鉴定对象通风无影响；2.“时代之窗”建设行为对鉴定对象日照、采光有影响，该影响不满足《城市居住区规划设计规范》《住宅设计规范》《民用建筑设计通则》《昆明市城乡规划管理技术规定》条文要求。法院经审理认为，在建筑物相邻关系纠纷中，判断是否构成采光、日照妨碍，应以是否违反国家有关工程建设标准为依据，故判决铜业房地产公司承担赔偿责任。该案对于采光、日照纠纷中如何认定采光、日照构成妨碍、是否违反国家有关工程建设标准、国家标准的日照时间及日照时间的缩短程度是否构成侵权等问题进行了认定，具有一定的借鉴意义。
4. Hearing of Climate Change Cases		（四）依法审理气候变化应对案件
Cases concerning GHG emissions, ozone depleting substances and other direct or indirect contributors to climate change, including the mitigation cases and adaptation cases, have been dealt with in accordance with the law. Various judicial means were employed to promote mitigation and adaptation in responding to climate change and promote the development of a national climate change governance system.		依法审理在应对因排放温室气体、臭氧层损耗物质等直接或间接影响气候变化过程中产生的案件，包括气候变化减缓类案件和气候变化适应类案件。注重运用多种司法裁判手段，促进减缓、适应两种应对气候变化手段的落地，推动构建国家气候变化应对治理体系。
We strengthened the trial of climate-change mitigation cases. The cases were handled to reduce or prevent GHG emissions from renewables, energy efficiency projects, sustainable transport, ODS control, land-use change and forestry management. We cracked down on crimes such as smuggling charcoal and silica sand that hinder the environmental and resource protection efforts, or illegally producing, selling, using, importing and exporting ODS. We properly dealt with cases of energy conservation and emission reduction in high-emissions industries and cases concerning the development and utilization of new energy to speed up low-carbon transition. We properly handled disputes over carbon sequestration and carbon trading to accelerate the development of a uniform national carbon emissions trading market. The Intermediate people's Court of Lanzhou City, Gansu Province and the Intermediate People's Court of Yinchuan City, Ningxia Hui Autonomous region are hearing the wind curtailment case of Friends of Nature (hereinafter referred to as FON) v. State Grid Corporation Ningxia and State Grid Corporation Gansu. FON filed a civil environmental public interest lawsuit against the two branches of the State Grid Corporation for failing to “fully purchase” all power generated by wind and solar energy that meet grid connection standards and for causing environmental pollution by relying on coal-fired power to fill the gaps in grid output caused by curtailment. In the administrative case of Quan Shijie v. Dandong Bureau of Ecology and Environment before the People's Court of Zhenxing District, Dandong City, Liaoning Province, Quan Shijie led a team engaged in chemical manufacturing activities in Wenbin Village. The product mainly consisted of CCl3F, an ozone-depleting substance of which production and consumption were controlled. Quan et al were found operating without applying for a quota license that allowed them to produce ODS in accordance with the regulations. Dandong Bureau of Ecology and Environment imposed an administrative penalty and ordered the plaintiff to stop the unlawful act. The bureau also confiscated the raw materials used for the unlawful production of ODS and the ODS-related products, demolished the manufacturing equipment and facilities etc., Quan, unsatisfied with the administrative decision, filed a complaint with the court. The court held that Quan was engaged in the manufactureing of CCl3F without ODS production quota license, violating the the Regulation on the Administration of Ozone Depleting Substances. Dandong Bureau of Ecology and Environment performed its duty required by law. Its application of laws and regulations was correct, and the alleged administrative action conformed to the statutory procedures. The judgement showcased China's commitment to securing compliance with international conventions and to safeguarding the living environment for all mankind.		加强气候变化减缓类案件审理。通过案件审理，促使在可再生能源、能源效率、可持续交通、臭氧层消耗物质控制、土地利用变化和林业管理等领域减少或避免温室气体排放。依法打击包括走私木炭、硅砂等妨害环境资源保护的犯罪行为，或者非法生产、销售、使用、进出口消耗臭氧层物质的犯罪行为。妥善审理碳排放重点行业领域及新能源开发利用的节能减排案件，促进低碳发展。妥善审理碳汇交易纠纷，推动建设全国统一的碳排放交易市场。甘肃省兰州市中级人民法院、宁夏回族自治区银川市中级人民法院依法受理、正在审理的北京市朝阳区自然之友环境研究所（以下简称自然之友）诉国网甘肃电力公司、国网宁夏电力公司两起“弃风弃光”环境民事公益诉讼案件，自然之友认为电力公司未全额收购电网覆盖范围内风能和太阳能光伏并网发电项目的上网电量，相应所弃电量改由燃煤发电从而造成环境污染，故对电力公司提起环境民事公益诉讼。辽宁省丹东市振兴区人民法院审理的权世杰诉丹东市生态环境局生态环境管理行政处罚一案中，权世杰组织人员在文斌村从事化学品生产作业，所生产产品主要成分为一氟三氯甲烷，属于受控生产和使用的消耗臭氧层物质。经查，其未按规定申请领取生产消耗臭氧层物质配额许可证，丹东市生态环境局作出行政处罚决定，责令停止违法行为，没收用于违法生产消耗臭氧层物质的原料、违法生产的消耗臭氧层物质；拆除、销毁用于违法生产消耗臭氧层物质的设备设施等，权世杰不服诉至法院。法院经审理认为，权世杰无消耗臭氧层物质生产配额许可证从事一氟三氯甲烷的生产，违反了《消耗臭氧层物质管理条例》的规定，丹东市生态环境局履行法定职责，经调查取证对其进行查处，作出的行政处罚适用法律、法规正确，符合法定程序。该案裁判展现了我国严格遵守相关国际公约，共同保护人类生存环境的决心。
．．．．．．		加强气候变化适应类案件审理。通过案件审理，推动在发展政策、规划、计划、项目和行动中促进迅捷和长期的适应措施，增强各种能力去更好地适应气候变化。依法审理涉及建设项目环境影响评价等适应气候变化案件，妥当适用国家节能减排相关法律、法规、规章和环境标准，降低气候变化对人身、财产以及公众健康带来的各种损失和影响。海南省海口市中级人民法院审理的海南森源置业有限公司（以下简称森源公司）诉海口市人民政府（以下简称海口市政府）有偿收回国有土地使用权一案中，森源公司用地与海口市生态保护红线中生物多样性Ⅱ类红线区有重叠，并涉及水源地保护。海口市政府以促进国民经济和社会发展等公共利益需要为由，根据《土地管理法》第五十八条第一款的规定，作出决定收回案涉土地使用权并给予适当补偿。森源公司不服诉至法院。法院经审理认为，案涉土地因水源保护、生态绿带控制性规划等问题不能按原用途开发，海口市政府认可案涉土地闲置有政府原因并基于公共利益需要决定有偿收回，并不违反法律的强制性、禁止性规定。该案裁判依法支持政府在促进扩大生态绿带、保障水资源保护工程、改进陆地生态系统等方面的积极作为，也体现了司法对气候变化适应有关措施的服务保障。
		．．．．．．
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at: +86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153) Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713 Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268 database@chinalawinfo.com		您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员。如有问题请来电咨询； Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153 Mobile: +86 13311570713 Fax: +86 (10) 82668268 E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

【法宝引证码】北大法宝www.lawinfochina.com

Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.

Confirmation Code:

Click image to reset code!

Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials.