|
|
|
No.8 of Ten Administrative Cases regarding Environmental Protection Published by the Supreme People's Court: Montaplast Automobiles System (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd. v. Environmental Protection Bureau of Suzhou Industrial Park (an administrative penalty case regarding environmental protection)
|
|
最高人民法院公布人民法院环境保护行政案件十大案例之八：梦达驰汽车系统（苏州工业园区）有限公司诉苏州工业园区环境保护局环保行政处罚案
|
|
【法宝引证码】
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No.8 of Ten Administrative Cases regarding Environmental Protection Published by the Supreme People's Court: Montaplast Automobiles System (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd. v. Environmental Protection Bureau of Suzhou Industrial Park (an administrative penalty case regarding environmental protection) | | 最高人民法院公布人民法院环境保护行政案件十大案例之八：梦达驰汽车系统（苏州工业园区）有限公司诉苏州工业园区环境保护局环保行政处罚案 |
| | |
| (1) Basic Facts | | （一）基本案情 |
| The Environmental Protection Bureau of the Industrial Park, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as the “Environmental Protection Bureau of the Industrial Park”) successively received complaints from residents of Tinglan Homeland Community about unhealthy odor generated by neighboring enterprises that affected their normal lives and well-beings. In September 2013, the Environmental Protection Bureau of the Industrial Park conducted a centralized inspection and rectification on exhaust emissions by neighboring enterprises and delimited 58 enterprises including Montaplast Automobiles System (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Montaplast Company”) as inspection objects. On September 30 of the same year, the law enforcement officers of the Environmental Protection Bureau of the Industrial Park, jointly with the law enforcement officers of the Environmental Monitoring Detachment of Suzhou City, came to Montaplast Company to conduct a law enforcement inspection. The security personnel of the Company stopped the law enforcement officers from entering the company to conduct on-site inspection on the ground that the law enforcement officers' visit was without an appointment. The law enforcement officers immediately called 110 for help. Under the requirements of police officers and law enforcement officers, the security personnel contacted the person in charge of environmental protection of the Company, and still refused to let the law enforcement officers to enter and conduct on-site inspection on the ground that the law enforcement officers failed to make an appointment in advance. Being obstructed from entering the Company, the law enforcement officers of the Environmental Protection Bureau of the Industrial Park believed that they have lost the optimal inspection opportunity. Therefore, they did not break into the Company to conduct an inspection. On December 6, 2013, the Environmental Protection Bureau of the Industrial Park served the Advanced Notice on Administrative Penalty upon the Company by mail. Within the prescribed time limit, the Company failed to put forward its statements and defense opinions to the Environmental Protection Bureau of the Industrial Park. On December 20 of the same year, the Environmental Protection Bureau of the Industrial Park made a decision on administrative penalty and determined that: When its personnel legally conducted a special on-site inspection on enterprises with exhaust emissions in Montaplast Company on September 30, 2013, Montaplast Company refused to let the law enforcement officers to carry out the inspection, which violated the provisions of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution that “the competent environmental protection authorities and other supervisory departments shall be empowered to make on-site inspections of polluters within their respective jurisdiction. The polluters being inspected must truthfully report the situation to them and provide them with necessary information.” In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Law on Administrative Penalty and the Law on the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution, the Environmental Protection Bureau of the Industrial Park imposed an administrative penalty of a fine of 40,000 yuan on Montaplast Company. Montaplast Company refused to accept the administrative penalty, filed an administrative lawsuit, and requested the court to revoke the decision on administrative penalty. | | 江苏省苏州市工业园区环境保护局（以下简称园区环保局）连续接到汀兰家园小区居民关于周围企业产生异味影响正常生活和健康的投诉，于2013年9月起对该小区周边企业废气排放情况集中排查整治，划定包括梦达驰汽车系统（苏州工业园区）有限公司（以下简称梦达驰公司）在内的58家企业作为检查对象。同年9月30日，园区环保局执法人员会同苏州市环境监察支队执法人员至梦达驰公司进行执法检查时，该公司保安以未办理来访预约为由拒绝执法人员进入现场检查。执法人员随即拨打110报警求助，在民警和执法人员的要求下，保安电话联系公司环保负责人后仍以未预约为由拒绝执法人员进入现场检查。园区环保局执法人员因受阻挠而认为丧失最佳检查时机，故未强行进入现场进行检查。2013年12月6日，园区环保局向该公司邮寄送达了《行政处罚事先告知书》。在规定的期限内，该公司未向园区环保局提出陈述申辩意见。同年12月20日，园区环保局作出行政处罚决定，认定2013年9月30日园区环保局依法对梦达驰公司开展废气排放企业专项现场检查时，该公司拒绝其入内开展检查，违反大气污染防治法关于“环境保护行政主管部门和其他监督管理部门有权对管辖范围内的排污单位进行现场检查，被检查单位必须如实反映情况，提供必要的资料”的规定，根据行政处罚法、大气污染防治法有关规定，对该公司处以罚款人民币4万元的行政处罚。梦达驰公司不服，提起行政诉讼，请求法院撤销该行政处罚决定。 |
| ．．．．．． | | ．．．．．． |
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
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|