Court: Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Ecology and Environment¡¯s Decisions Have Eligible Subject of Law Enforcement
On June 5, 2020,
the Jinshan District People¡¯s Court of Shanghai (hereinafter referred to as the
¡°Shanghai Jinshan Court¡±) Environmental Resources Tribunal pronounced judgement
on two administrative cases involving exhaust gas pollution of environmental
resources. In both cases, the plaintiff company lacked factual basis and legal
basis, so the first-instance judgment dismissed the plaintiff¡¯s lawsuit.
[Case Review]
In June 2019, some
people reported that a certain company was processing plastics, which produced
waste gas and affected the lives of surrounding residents, and the company had
not gone through the environmental impact assessment procedures and had no
facilities to treat the pollution.
Subsequently, the
law enforcement personnel of the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Ecology and
Environment inspected the company and found that Company Y was engaged in the
production of plastic products. The company¡¯s suspected illegal activities were
filed and investigated. The company¡¯s legal representative admitted that
Company Y was engaged in the production of mobile phone plastic accessories. It
began to install equipment in mid-May 2019 and put into production in the same month,
with a production output of about 10,000. A small amount of waste gas was generated
during the production process, but no waste gas collection and treatment
facilities were provided, and the environmental impact assessment report form
of the construction project has not been submitted to the environmental
protection department for approval.
On August 28 and
September 19 of the same year, the law enforcement personnel of the Shanghai
Municipal Bureau of Ecology and Environment inspected Company Y and found that it
ceased production. On September 23, the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Ecology
and Environment made two ¡°Administrative Penalty Decisions,¡± holding that
Company Y failed to submit the environmental impact assessment report form of
the construction project for approval in accordance with the law and started
construction without permission, which violated the Law of the People¡¯s Republic of China on Environmental Impact
Assessment, and a fine of RMB 14,000 should be paid. At the same time, when the required environmental protection
facilities for supporting construction were not completed, Company Y
construction project began to put into production and emitted pollutants, which
violated the relevant regulations of Regulations
on the Administration of Construction Project Environmental Protection, and
a fine of RMB 350,000 should be paid. The Company Y refused to accept the
aforementioned two administrative punishment decisions, and filed
administrative lawsuits against the Shanghai Jinshan Court.
The Company Y argued
that it accepted the entrustment of Company N to cooperate with the
investigation and punishment of the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Ecology and
Environment, and had leased the plant to Company N, the actual operator, so it
was not an eligible subject.
The Shanghai
Municipal Bureau of Ecology and Environment argued that: throughout the law
enforcement process, Company Y has always acknowledged its production and
operation. The Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Ecology and Environment has
fulfilled its duty of care and requested Company Y to provide materials related
to Company N in the appointment notice, but Company Y failed to provide it. The
Company Y was an eligible subject to be punished.
During the trial,
the court found that Company Y¡¯s statement in the lawsuit was inconsistent with
that in the transcript made in the enforcement process of the Shanghai
Municipal Bureau of Ecology and Environment. The Company Y stated in the
lawsuit that it was acting for company N to deal with punishment matters and
violated the estoppel rules (The parties shall be responsible for the various
expressions they made in words when conducting civil proceedings. No remarks or
actions that negate prior words may be made at will.) Moreover, the person in
charge of Company N stated that they were unclear about the matter before the
punishment was made and that Company Y had not been entrusted. Therefore, the
claim of Company Y lacked evidence and was contrary to common sense.
[Case Study]
After trial, the
Shanghai Jinshan Court held that the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Ecology and
Environment, as the competent department of environmental protection,
implements overall supervision and management of environmental protection work
in its administrative area, and has the authority to supervise and manage the
environmental protection work within its jurisdiction according to law. The
Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Ecology and Environment, after discovering the
illegal clues in this case, carried out the procedures of filing,
investigation, hearing, decision, and service according to law. Before making
an administrative penalty decision, it informed Company Y of the facts, reasons
and basis of the administrative penalty, and heard Company Y¡¯s statement of
defense. Its enforcement procedures were in compliance with the law. As for the
administrative penalty decisions made by the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of
Ecology and Environment, the subject of law enforcement was eligible, the facts
clear, the procedure legal, the applicable laws and regulations correct, and
the administrative penalty reasonable. The Company Y¡¯s lawsuit request lacked
factual and legal basis, and the court cannot support it. The court of first
instance dismissed Company Y¡¯s lawsuit.
[Relevant Laws]
The Administrative Litigation Law of the People¡¯s Republic of China
Article 69 Where the alleged administrative action has been
taken under statutory procedures with conclusive evidence and correct
application of laws and regulations, or the grounds for the plaintiff¡¯s
application for the defendant to perform its statutory duties and
responsibilities or make payment are unfounded, the people¡¯s court shall enter
a judgment to dismiss the plaintiff¡¯s claims.
(Authors: Lu Yebo, Zhou Hui, and Liu Jingyun of Shanghai
Jinshan Court)
>> Chinese Version