Workflow
环境公益诉讼
icon
Search documents
最高法发布指导性案例,明确生态环境案裁判、审查、程序规则
Di Yi Cai Jing· 2025-05-29 02:39
Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court emphasizes the need to balance high-quality development with high-level environmental protection, promoting harmony between humans and nature [1] Group 1: Legal Framework and Guidelines - The Supreme People's Court has clarified rules regarding ecological environmental infringement liability, environmental public interest litigation, and procedures for cross-administrative region cases [1] - The court has released the 46th batch of five guiding cases related to environmental civil public interest litigation, covering various issues such as environmental impact assessments and pollution prevention [1][4] Group 2: Case Studies and Judicial Decisions - In a case involving a hydropower station, the project had a total investment of approximately RMB 8.15 billion and included measures for the protection of a unique species, the Sichuan salmon [2] - The court ruled that if a construction project has undergone an environmental impact assessment and taken protective measures, it should not be deemed to pose a significant risk to social public interests [2] Group 3: Public Interest Litigation - Environmental public interest litigation is recognized as a means to protect social public interests, and the court encourages and protects such lawsuits while ensuring that plaintiffs exercise their rights effectively [4] - The court has established that if a plaintiff in an environmental civil public interest lawsuit requests to withdraw the case, the court must confirm that the plaintiff's requests regarding ecological restoration and damage compensation have been fully realized before allowing the withdrawal [5] Group 4: Cross-Regional Cooperation - The Supreme People's Court has highlighted the need for collaboration among various courts and enforcement agencies to enhance ecological governance, particularly in regions like the Yangtze River [5][6] - In a case of illegal sand mining, the court allowed for the transfer of ecological restoration funds across administrative boundaries to facilitate effective environmental remediation [6]