Stand Fan,Tall Standing Fan,Electric Stand Fan,Stand Up Oscillating Fan Foshan kanasi electrical co.,ltd , https://www.fskanasifan.com
The judicial interpretation clearly stipulates that the polluters shall bear the tort liability regardless of whether or not the polluters are at fault. If the polluters claim that they do not assume responsibility for the discharge of pollutants in compliance with national or local pollutant discharge standards, the People’s Court will not support them.
The new environmental protection law stipulates that environmental assessment agencies, environmental monitoring agencies and other frauds should be jointly and severally liable with other persons responsible for environmental pollution and ecological damage. The judicial interpretation issued this time defines “deceptionâ€: First, the environmental impact assessment agency and the client maliciously colluded or knowingly provided false information to provide serious evaluation documents; second, the environmental monitoring agency or engaged in the environment. Institutions that monitor the maintenance and operation of equipment are maliciously collaborated with the consignor, concealing the fact that the consignor exceeds the pollutant discharge standard or exceeds the control criteria for the total discharge of key pollutants; third, the agencies and consignors who are engaged in the prevention and control of pollution prevention facilities are malicious. Collusion leads to the inability of the facility to function properly. Fourth, environmental pollution is caused by other organizations’ falsifications in environmental service activities.
For the situation where several people separately or collectively pollute the environment, the judicial interpretation is clear: if several polluters jointly commit environmental pollution acts and cause damage to the infringed, they shall be jointly and severally liable according to the relevant provisions of the tort liability law. For cases in which several polluters separately commit environmental pollution and cause the same damage, judicial interpretation is stipulated in three situations.
In addition, the judicial interpretation stipulates that the people’s court should reasonably determine the polluter’s civil liability for stopping the infringement, restitution, and compensation for losses based on the infringer’s claim and the specific case. Among them, "restitution" is mainly to require the person who is responsible for the damage to take responsibility for pollution control and ecological restoration, including restoration in situ and restoration in other places. If the person who damages does not govern or repair or does not have the ability to govern or repair, the people’s court may entrust the relevant unit to perform it on behalf of the polluter.
The judicial interpretation also stipulates the principle of liability for environmental tort liability disputes and the reasons for the reduction, the damage caused by the third party's fault pollution environment, and the principle of distribution of burden of proof between the infringer and the polluter.
The Supreme Law defines the polluters as responsible
The Supreme People's Court issued the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Environmental Tort Liability Disputes." This is the second judicial interpretation of environmental liability cases issued by the Supreme Law since the implementation of the new environmental protection law. The judicial interpretation has implemented 19 judicial interpretations since June 3, explaining the legal application of dispute cases concerning environmental tort liability from eight aspects. The scope of application of this judicial interpretation includes both environmental private litigation cases and environmental public interest litigation cases; it applies not only to environmental pollution cases but also to destruction of ecological cases.