中国环境民事公益诉讼的七个基本问题——从“某市环保联合会诉某化工公司环境污染案”说开去

The Seven Basic Problems of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation in China——Derived from a environmental pollution case between Environmental Protection Association and some Chemicals Co.,Ltd.

"某市环保联合会诉某化工公司等环境污染"一案揭示了中国环境民事公益诉讼向制度化迈进的取向。但该案在法院角色、原告资格、检察机关定位、因果关系推定以及赔偿款计算和履行等问题上亦引发诸多拷问。首先,法院在该案中过于积极和能动,是否有错位之嫌?其次,该案原告资格认定依据与适格原告的一般构成要件不相符,是否有牵强之嫌?其三,环保机关的支持配合,是否有渎职之嫌?其四,检察机关的角色定位缺乏法律根据,是否有越权之虞?其五,因果关系推定欠缺足够法理支撑,是否有擅断之嫌?其六,损害赔偿计算标准缺乏实定法上的依据,是否有违法之嫌?其七,"天价赔偿"如何使用?凡此七大问题,既是对该案之拷问,也是中国环境民事公益诉讼走向制度化所必须诘难。

The environmental pollution case between Environmental Protection Association and some Chemicals Co., Ltd. reflects a tendency that the environmental civil public interest litigation forge ahead toward the institutional- ization. But the case also caused a lot of torture in the role of the court, the plaintiff qualification, the location of the procuratorate, the presumption causation, the calculating method of compensation and implementation and so on. First of all, the court in the case is too active, whether there is dislocation suspected？ Secondly, whether is too far- fetched or not in the plaintiff qualification basis？ Third, the environmental protection organs is fully engaged with the court, whether there is suspected of dereliction of duty？ Fourth, the role of the prosecution is lack of legal basis, is there a danger of ultra vires？ Fifth, the presumption causation is lack of sufficient legal support, whether there is suspected of good faith？ Sixth, whether there is suspected of illegal in the calculating compensation and implementa- tion？ And seventh, how to use Astronomical Compensation？ All these seven issues, both the torture of the case, but also China＇s environmental civil litigation to the institutionalization of public interest must be questioned.