An environmental protection organization sued a sewage treatment plant for discharging pollutants beyond the standard and claimed compensation for environmental damage, but it did not gain the support of the court.
An environmental organization filed a public interest litigation for environmental pollution over long-term excessive pollution by a sewage treatment plant in Xinrong District of Datong City. On December 26th, 2024, the Intermediate People’s Court of Datong, Shanxi Province, ruled that the defendant should pay the plaintiff, Beijing Grassland Alliance Environmental Protection Promotion Center, 10,000 yuan in legal fees and travel expenses. The court found no evidence to prove that the defendant’s sewage discharge exceeded the self-purification capacity of the environment and caused actual damage or significant risk of ecological damage. Therefore, the court rejected other claims of the plaintiff.
On January 5th, 2025, The Paper reported from the litigation agent of Beijing Grassland Alliance Environmental Protection Promotion Center that they were preparing for an appeal.
According to the aforementioned Datong Intermediate Court judgment, official reports or administrative punishment information submitted by the plaintiff showed that the defendant had long-term excessive discharge from 2014 to 2021, with key indicators such as COD, ammonia nitrogen, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus in wastewater continuously exceeding the standard.
The plaintiff believed that the defendant’s illegal pollution “not only caused ecological damage to the water areas it flowed through, but also posed significant safety risks to animals and humans within the watershed.”
The plaintiff requested the court to order the defendant to stop the infringement, eliminate the danger, restore the status quo, and compensate for the losses. The compensation should cover the loss of service function during the period when the environment was damaged until it was restored and be used for environmental protection work in Datong, Shanxi Province, and downstream areas of the Yellow River Basin. The amount of loss was 252,720 yuan (based on legal opinions issued by expert assistants), an apology, and legal fees of 150,000 yuan and travel expenses of 10,000 yuan incurred by the case.
The judgment showed that the defendant argued that domestic sewage and industrial sewage are fundamentally different in nature and degree of pollution. Excessive discharge of domestic sewage did not necessarily lead to environmental damage, and their excessive discharge had not caused actual ecological damage.
The defendant also stated that they had intensified technological transformation, financial support, and personnel allocation. From August 20, 2021 to the present, there was no excessive discharge, achieving the plaintiff’s request to stop the infringement and eliminate the danger. At the same time, all environmental protection fines and taxes due to excessive discharge stated in the lawsuit have been fully paid, with a total of 8.66 million yuan in environmental protection fines and 22,600 yuan in environmental protection taxes paid. The defendant believed that the payment of these taxes and fees was also compensation for the damage or ecological restoration costs arising from previous excessive discharge.
During the trial, the Datong court sent a letter to the Datong Environmental Protection Agency to inquire about relevant environmental damage issues. The latter replied in writing on December 9th, 2024: “1. Excessive discharge will cause ecological damage. Due to a long time span from September 2013 to August 2021, there is a lack of data from Xinrong Sewage Treatment Co., Ltd., so it may be impossible to identify environmental damage. 2. Xinrong Sewage Treatment Co., Ltd. has paid a total of 8.66 million yuan in administrative fines from September 2013 to August 2021. 3. Since September 2021, Xinrong Sewage Treatment Co., Ltd. has not had any excessive discharge.”
During the trial, the plaintiff attempted to identify the pollution loss and environmental restoration costs caused by the defendant’s excessive pollution. However, the鉴定机构 rejected the case due to finding that the鉴定 materials were not true, complete, sufficient, or obtained in an illegal manner.
The judgment stated that this case is a civil public interest litigation for environmental pollution. According to “Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Environmental Infringement Civil Litigation,” the plaintiff in such cases should bear the burden of proof for the following facts: (1) The defendant engaged in pollution or ecological destruction behavior that violated national regulations; (2) The ecological environment has been damaged or there is a significant risk of damage.
The court considered that there was no evidence to prove that the defendant’s sewage discharge had exceeded the self-purification capacity of the environment and caused actual damage or significant risk of ecological damage at present. Therefore, it did not support the plaintiff’s request for civil liability such as stopping the infringement, eliminating danger, apologizing, and compensation for losses.
The court also noted that during its operation, the defendant had repeatedly discharged sewage in excess of standards, which had indeed caused
