Taizhou Environmental Protection Federation vs. Taixing Jinhui Chemical Co., Ltd. Country/Territory China Type of court National - higher court Date Jan 31, 2016 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China Judge LIN WenxueWEI WenchaoLIU XiaofeiWANG ZhanfeiWU Kaimin Reference number Min Shen Zi No. 1366 (Civil Ruling) Language English Subject Waste & hazardous substances Keyword Standing to sue Basic legislation Sub-national agreement Dispute settlement Framework law Sustainable development Liability/compensation Ecosystem preservation Abstract A chemical company, Jinhui, arranged to dispose of acid by-product by nominally selling the waste to a second company, Jiangzhong, at a low rate while simultaneously paying Jiangzhong transportation subsidies at a much higher rate. Jinhui continued to provide the waste despite knowledge that Jiangzhong did not have the qualifications to dispose of it, and did not intervene despite knowledge that Jiangzhong was illegally disposing of it in a river. The court of first instance found Jinhui liable in a tort suit filed by the Taizhou Environmental Protection Federation (TEPF). Jinhui appealed on grounds of damage valuation, standing, causality, civil procedure, liability, and corporate autonomy. The appeals court confirmed the original decision, and the Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court’s decision. Environmental Legal Questions:Can Jinhui be held liable for restoration costs: While rivers have some self-restorative capacity, without remediation, pollution will accumulate to a level of irreversible damage. Liability cannot be relieved simply because the segment of water where the acid was dumped has been restored. The lower appeals court correctly ordered restoration costs, and the “virtual restoration cost method” is approriate where it is difficult or impossible to calculate actual damages.Does the Taizhou Environmental Protection Federation (TEPF) have standing to bring environmental public-interest litigation (EPIL): According to Art 55 of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC, an organization, as prescribed by law, may institute an action against conduct that pollutes the environment or otherwise damages the public interest. TEPF is duly licensed to protect environmental public interests and eligible to present an EPIL case.Is there a sufficient causal connection to hold Jinhui liable: Producers must ensure that the production, sales, transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous chemicals are compliant with set rules to avoid liability. Jinhui provided Jiangzhong with acid by-product despite knowledge that the latter had no qualifications to dispose of it. Furthermore, despite knowledge of Jiangzhong’s dumping, Jinhui did not intervene to stop it. While it did not dump the waste itself, Jinhui is liable.Did the appeals court have the authority to adjust the timeline and conditions of Jinhui’s restoration costs: The appeals court’s decision was designed to encourage companies to improve technologies and lower environmental risks, and was not an amendment of the original judgement or an incorrect application of civil procedure.Is it a violation of Jinhui’s autonomy to grant environmental protection authorities power over the execution of the decision: The judgement held that 40% of restoration costs can be deducted if the defendant certifies it is abiding by environmental assessments or technology upgrades. This is not a violation of autonomy. Jinhui should assume its responsibilities as a corporate and environmental protection entity, bringing the idea of sustainability into practice. Full text Taizhou Environmental Protection Federation vs. Taixing Jinhui Chemical Co., Ltd..pdf content