An Analysis Of The Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation Appeals Of Friends Of Nature And Green Development Association Against Changlong Chemical And Other Companies

Changzhou changlong co.,LTD.,changyu co.,LTD.,and huada co.,ltd.in jiangsu province caused pollutants to run,emit,drip,and leak in the production process,and the storage of materials,wastewater discharge,and waste liquid management is not standard,resulting in serious soil and groundwater pollution.Friends of nature and the green development society have filed a civil environmental public interest lawsuit.There are three main points of dispute in the second trial of this case: first,whether the appellee should bear the civil liability for ecological environment damage;Second,whether the appellee should bear the responsibility for controlling the risk of soil pollution;Thirdly,whether the appellee should bear the responsibility of soil pollution remediation.From the analysis of the constitutive elements of the civil liability for ecological environment damage,the appellee has carried out the ecological environment damage behavior,caused the ecological environment damage result,the ecological environment damage behavior and the result have a causal relationship,so the appellee should bear the environmental damage liability;From the analysis of the connotation and rules of soil pollution risk control,the risk control scope organized by the local government has covered the responsibility scope of the appellee,and the risk control work has achieved phased results,so the appellee does not need to bear the responsibility of soil pollution risk control.From the analysis of the connotation and rules of soil pollution remediation,it can be seen that the soil pollution remediation project has complicated procedures,and once the remediation is started,it is difficult to start all over again,and the administrative organ has undertaken the remediation responsibility,so it is no longer necessary to ask theappellee to undertake the remediation responsibility repeatedly.Since the administrative organ did not participate in the lawsuit,nor did it seek compensation from the appellee,the court had no right to take the initiative to intervene,so the appellee did not bear the soil pollution remediation costs.The case involves the environmental public interest litigation in our country as well as the risk of soil pollution control and repair the system problems,such as,caused wide attention from all sectors of society,revealed the deficiency existing in soil pollution control in China: the responsibility to ensure the risk of soil pollution control is difficult to implement,repair cost calculation standard of soil pollution in China is not enough clear,the behavior of the soil pollution repair responsibility to the heads of government.Therefore,it is necessary to continuously improve the soil pollution remediation standards and soil protection standards,establish the soil pollution remediation fund system,establish the soil pollution liability insurance system,and improve the soil pollution public participation system,so as to promote the development of environmental rule of law in China.