Hainan Sang-De Water Co., Ltd. vs. Danzhou Municipal Bureau of Ecological and Environmental Protection Pays/Territoire Chine Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Jui 27, 2016 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal No.2 Intermediate People’s Court of Hainan Province Siège de la cour Hainan Province Juge Zhang DexiongWen KuixingLiu Xia Numéro de référence Qiong 97 Xing Zhong No. 34 (Administrative Judgement) Langue Anglais Sujet Déchets et substances dangereuses Mot clé Législation de base Pollution des eaux douces/qualité des eaux douces Accord sous-national Règlement des différends Loi-cadre Résumé The Danzhou Municipal Bureau of Ecological and Environmental Protection (the Bureau) issued an administrative punishment decision against Sangde, a water treatment company, on the basis of a monitoring report which found unacceptable levels of pollutants in the company’s discharge. Sangde sued the Bureau, alleging that key evidence was insufficient and the administrative punishment procedures were illegal. The court of first instance found for Sangde. The appeals court affirmed the insufficiency of the evidence and illegality of the administrative procedures. Environmental Legal Questions:Were the facts on which the administrative punishment was based sufficient: The Bureau failed to provide relevant evidence of sampling records or procedures, and was unable to prove the sampling procedures underlying the monitoring report were legal. The report could thus not be relied on as key evidence.Was the administrative punishment in line with legal procedures: The Bureau had already formed an opinion on how to handle the case while they were deliberating whether to file, violating separation of investigation and punishment. Additionally, the Bureau did not have sufficient evidence to support the violation.Was the punishment decision legal: Application of the law shall be based on factual findings. Since key evidence to prove the factual basis for the punishment decision was insufficient, the application of law to punish Sande was also incorrect. Additionally, the fine was an administrative punishment, while the order to undertake treatment was an administrative order. The Bureau should not have included an administrative order in a punishment decision. Texte intégral Hainan Sang-De Water Co., Ltd. vs. Danzhou Municipal Bureau of Ecological and Environmental Protection.pdf content