Sue sat for the Department of environmental protection in Harbin cement plant: responding to Deputy Director of the Department of environmental protection
The morning of May 13, told the Ministry of environmental protection of Harbin cement plant sat.
Because the company did not move the residents within 500 meters of health protection zone, withdrew in the administrative review of the Department of environmental protection environmental protection Bureau in Harbin, Heilongjiang province, Xiao Ling cement limited (hereinafter referred to as Xiao Ling cement company) made of the acceptance check of environmental protection. Xiao Ling cement company, and sued the Department of environmental protection to the Beijing number one intermediate court. Ji Linyun, Deputy Director of the policy and regulations Division of the Ministry of environmental protection and lawyer appear in court.
On May 13, the Xiao Ling cement company to the Ministry of environmental protection of Harbin sat, Ji Linyun, Deputy Director of the policy and regulations Division of the Ministry of environmental protection and lawyer appear in court. This picture came from journalists surging Diao FanchaoTrial over Wang Xinhua, a third party application for reconsideration, if more than the required 60 day deadline, Ministry of environmental protection of the administrative procedural legality of the reconsideration decision, make a reconsideration decision the facts and legal basis to set up three focus. No pronouncement of the Court.
Refuses to accept the plant decided to sue the Ministry of environmental protection
Xiao Ling cement company is located in Harbin, Heilongjiang province, Acheng Xiao Ling Zhen Shi Jie, Wang Xinhua from Xiao ling, just one street away from the cement sector, "less than 10 meters".
By the effect of cement dust, noise, starting in 2012, Wang Xinhua, who began to make complaint calls, to the municipal environmental protection Bureau, the environmental protection Bureau of Heilongjiang province, Harbin and other departments, but has so far failed to resolve the relocation.
On July 31, 2015, Wang Xinhua, 7 reconsideration request to the Ministry of environmental protection for the applicant, requesting the Ministry revoked the environmental protection Bureau of Heilongjiang 2011 valid for Xiao Ling cement company made by the environmental protection completion acceptance views (black ring test [2011]76), Ministry of environmental protection administrative review decision November 2015 to support it.
Xiao Ling cement company on the administrative reconsideration of decision, and a lawsuit to the Ministry to court requesting court administrative reconsideration decision of the Ministry of environmental protection in violation of the law, lack of supporting facts, requests the Court to be withdrawn.
The morning of May 13, in the third division of the Beijing Municipal first intermediate people's Court heard the case.
Surging News (www.thepaper.CN) in the trial scene, plaintiff Xiao Ling cement company head Liu Weiyong and two lawyers court Ji Linyun, Deputy Director of the policy and regulations Division of the Ministry of environmental protection of the accused and lawyer appear in court. Wang Xinhua has a direct interest in the case, the Court decided to append Wang Xinhua 7 people, including for third parties, four lawyers, as lawyers. In accordance with the new regulatory requirements of the Supreme Court, all lawyers in robes in court.
This case is heard in public, Qiao Jun by the judge presiding the trial, Li 赟le, Xu Zhongjia composition Court of clerk feiyu.
Trial 9 40 parts, the three parties around Wang Xinhua, a third party application for reconsideration, if more than the required 60 day period, Ministry of environmental protection of the administrative procedural legality of the reconsideration decision, make a reconsideration decision the facts and legal basis to set up three focus.
Trials continued until 1 o'clock in the afternoon, the presiding judge called a recess, depending on whether the full Court decided to re-open the.
Application for reconsideration is out of date
According to the provisions of the administrative reconsideration law of the Nineth, applying for administrative reconsideration of time should know the specific administrative act for administrative reconsideration within 60 days from the date of application.
Plaintiffs counsel submits that on September 9, 2014, Acheng district, Harbin city environmental protection Bureau in petition responses explicitly inform applicants such as Wang Xinhua, Heilongjiang environmental protection Office of the acceptance check of environmental protection (black ring test [2011]76) September 11, third-party review submissions has been received. "So the latest known date is September 11, 2014, should be measured 60 days from this date. ”
The defendant submitted that, in this case 7 third, Acheng district, Harbin City Bureau of letters and visits Qu Hongliang in the reply only 7 applicants, and reply regarding the delivery had not been signed by the third page, "is blank". Cannot prove that Qu Hongliang "self-knowledge".
TrialWhen the judge confirmed, the third said Office of Heilongjiang environmental protection acceptance check of environmental protection informed of the views of the time don't know. Third party said Wang Xinhua, knew of the acceptance check of environmental protection until 2015, "the time is not clear." Qu Hongliang, such petition is not received reply comments has not been checked.
Whether legality
Plaintiffs counsel's view, the core dispute in this case is the health protection zone, and 500 m in the case of health protection zone standards based on Wei of the State Planning Commission, the Ministry of environmental protection had no right to investigate the health protection zone "should be investigated by the health planning Commission, Wei Planning Commission administrative penalty should also be punishment". And, in the procedure, does not entrust the Harbin environmental protection Bureau of the Department of environmental protection site inspection.
Also, the Ministry of environmental protection on the administrative reconsideration decision made by the third party plays Xiao ling, Harbin cement plant "decision of life and death", plaintiffs believe the Ministry should hold the hearing in administrative reconsideration decision.
Accused respondent Ji Linyun, said Wang Xinhua, the Department of environmental protection is written review of the applicant's application for administrative reconsideration, commissioned a scene investigation of Harbin's Bureau is not illegal, "written in the review process, commissioned the inspection both real rationality, and not in violation of the law." And, environmental Department review of is for Heilongjiang environmental Office environmental acceptance views (black ring inspection [2011]76,) reply whether legal of problem, and health protection distance specific applies of standard has nothing to do, and "this a health protection distance set according to of is national standards, select which a items national standards on must to comply with, but review Shi does not need by developed this a standard of units for review. ”
On plaintiffs agent lawyer pointed out that of environmental Department in do administrative reconsideration decided Qian no for hearing this is, accused agent lawyer think, administrative reconsideration method provides, for major, and has dispute sex case in administrative reconsideration process in the, applicants can to administrative reconsideration organ proposed hearing application, administrative organ also can himself judge, active held hearing, but "no provides reconsideration Shi must do hearing, and also no provides was applicants has application hearing of right. ”
Whether a factual and legal basis could be established
Plaintiff Liu Weiyong believes that health protection zone should be based on fugitive emission equipment is the origin, but Harbin Bureau of investigation is calculated on a boundary boundary does not comply with the law. Also, "health protection from the original defendant and the third party does not make clear where it started from. ”
Liu Weiyong said that 7 claimants, Tian Xiuyong and Qu Hongliang housing are living, others are commercial, he believed that commercial housing is not within the scope of relocation. And only one of them was Xiao Ling cement company of the applicant trade unions, relocation of employees of other enterprises will not be responsible for.
Defendant's attorney said, the EIA approval is already in effect, not the argument in the present case, contention in this case is whether environmental protection completion acceptance to implement the EIA approval referred to in the request, "the EIA approval acceptance of content is necessary to take into account the following. (The environmental protection Bureau of Heilongjiang province) clearly stated in the reply to implement 500 meters within the sanitary protection zone of the relocation and resettlement of residents, so must be implemented before acceptance. Acceptance is the production of the final round. ”
Ji Linyun said at the trial, the Ministry of environmental protection the administrative reconsideration decision is made on the basis of the administrative reconsideration law of the 28th (c) "main facts are not clear and the evidence is insufficient," decided to remove.
"After investigation and verification, the EIA report and approval of proposed projects within 500 meters of health protection zone, there are still more than 700 residents live within this distance, no relocation. Heilongjiang environmental protection Office of the environmental protection completion acceptance approval with the facts. In fact 7 applicants one is only 300 metres away, other 6 people within a 100 meters away from "Ji Linyun said.
"Relocation is relocation of companies or Government relocation is not up to us to decide", said the Ministry of environmental protection of the accused is only for "the implementation of the relocation" the fact that the review, Office of Heilongjiang environmental protection acceptance check of environmental protection compliance with the facts, so I decided to be revoked.
Third party lawyer added that relevant documents and materials proved "the plaintiffs three times promised relocation implementation, have not delivered. ”
For plaintiffs proposed of health protection distance within commercial with room not belongs to sensitive district, is not relocation range within of problem, accused agent lawyer response said, health protection distance for of is residential of concept, live district within didn't necessary distinguish housing even specific each a room of uses, from protection human health of angle, are should belongs to relocation range, and legal Shang no workers and non-workers distinguish from different treats of claims.
(Editors: Pan Yi burn UN657)
2016-05-13 16:21:50
Surging
哈尔滨水泥厂告环保部案开庭：环保部副处长应诉
5月13日上午，哈尔滨一水泥厂告环保部案开庭。
因企业未搬迁走500米卫生防护距离内的居民，环保部在行政复议时撤销了黑龙江省环保厅对哈尔滨小岭水泥有限公司（下称小岭水泥公司）做出的《环保验收意见》。小岭水泥公司不服，将环保部起诉至北京市第一中院。环保部政策法规司副处长季林云及代理律师出庭应诉。
5月13日，哈尔滨小岭水泥公司告环保部案开庭，环保部政策法规司副处长季林云及代理律师出庭应诉。 本文图片均来自澎湃新闻记者 刁凡超 庭审围绕王欣华等第三人复议申请是否超过法定60日期限，环保部作出的《行政复议决定书》程序合法性，作出复议决定的事实和法律依据是否能成立三个焦点展开。法院没有当庭宣判。
水泥厂不服决定状告环保部
小岭水泥公司位于黑龙江省哈尔滨市阿城区小岭镇石发街，王欣华的家距离小岭水泥厂界仅一条马路之隔，“不足10米”。
因深受水泥厂粉尘、噪音影响，自2012年起，王欣华等人开始不断拨打投诉举报电话，向哈尔滨市环保局、黑龙江环保厅等多部门反映情况，但至今未能解决搬迁问题。
2015年7月31日，王欣华等7为申请人向环保部提出复议请求，请求环保部依法撤销黑龙江环保厅2011年对小岭水泥有效公司作出的《环保竣工验收意见》（黑环验［2011］76号），环保部2015年11月作出行政复议决定予以支持。
小岭水泥公司对《行政复议决定书》不服，一纸诉状将环保部告上法庭，请求法院判决环保部的行政复议决定违反法律规定，缺乏事实支持，请求法院予以撤销。
5月13日上午，案件在北京市第一中级人民法院第三审判庭公开审理。
澎湃新闻（www.thepaper.cn）在庭审现场看到，原告小岭水泥公司负责人刘维勇和两名代理律师出庭，被告环保部政策法规司副处长季林云及代理律师出庭应诉。因王欣华与本案有直接利益关系，法院决定追加王欣华等7人为第三方，四位律师作为代理律师。按照最高法的新规要求，现场所有律师着律师袍出庭。
本次案件为公开审理，庭审由法官乔军担任审判长，李赟乐、徐钟佳组成合议庭，书记员为祝飞宇。
庭审9点40份开始，三方围绕王欣华等第三人复议申请是否超过法定60日期限，环保部作出的《行政复议决定书》程序合法性，作出复议决定的事实和法律依据是否能成立三个焦点展开。
庭审持续到下午1点，主审法官宣布休庭，视合议庭意见决定是否再开庭。
复议申请是否过期
根据《行政复议法》第九条规定，申请行政复议的时间应该是自知道该具体行政行为之日起60日内提出行政复议申请。
原告代理律师认为，2014年9月9日，哈尔滨市阿城区环保局在信访答复意见明确告知王欣华等申请人，黑龙江环保厅作出了《环保验收意见》（黑环验［2011］76号）9月11日第三方已经收到复查意见书。“所以最晚知道的日期应该是2014年9月11日，应该从这个日期开始算60天。”
被告认为，本案涉及7位第三人中，哈尔滨市阿城区环保局信访答复意见只针对7名申请人中的屈洪亮，并且，答复意见第三页收信人处没有签字，“是空白的”。不能证明屈洪亮已“自知”。
庭审现场 法官现场确认时，第三人表示对黑龙江环保厅《环保验收意见》的获知时间记不清楚。第三人王欣华说，2015年才知道《环保验收意见》，“具体时间不清楚”。屈洪亮表示，没有收到上述信访答复意见，也没有签过字。
程序是否合法性
原告代理律师认为，本案的核心争议是卫生防护距离，而本案中500米的卫生防护距离依据的是国家卫计委做出的相应标准，环保部没有权利对这一卫生防护距离进行调查，“应由卫计委调查，罚也应该是卫计委进行行政处罚”。并且，在程序上，环保部没有权委托哈尔滨环保局进行现场勘验。
并且，环保部作出的《行政复议决定》对第三人哈尔滨小岭水泥厂起到“生死存亡的决定作用”，原告认为环保部应该在作行政复议决定前举行听证。
被告出庭应诉人季林云表示，环保部对王欣华等申请人的行政复议申请进行的是书面审查，委托哈尔滨环保局现场勘验也并不违法，“在进行书面审查过程中，委托勘验既有现实合理性，又不违反法律规定”。并且，环保部审查的是针对黑龙江环保厅《环保验收意见》（黑环验［2011］76号）批复是否合法的问题，与卫生防护距离具体适用的标准无关，并且“这一卫生防护距离设定依据的是国家标准，选择哪一项国家标准就必须要遵守，但审查时并不需要由制定这一标准的单位进行审查。”
关于原告代理律师指出的环保部在做行政复议决定前没有进行听证这一点，被告代理律师认为，《行政复议法》规定，对于重大、有争议性案件在行政复议过程中，申请人可以向行政复议机关提出听证申请，行政机关也可以自己判断，主动举行听证，但“没有规定复议时必须做听证，并且也没有规定被申请人有申请听证的权利。”
事实和法律依据是否能成立
原告刘维勇认为，卫生防护距离应该以无组织排放设备为原点，但哈尔滨环保局现场勘验是以厂界为边界计算不符合法律规定。并且，“对卫生防护距离原点被告和第三人都没有说清楚从哪里开始算。”
刘维勇称，7位申请人中，田秀勇和屈洪亮的房屋用途是居住，其他都是商用，他认为商用住房不在搬迁范围内。并且申请人只有一位是小岭水泥公司的职工，其他非公司职工的搬迁不应由企业负责。
被告代理律师说，环评批复已经生效，不是本案争论焦点，本案争论焦点是对环保竣工验收是否落实了环评批复中提到的要求，“环评批复内容是验收必须要考虑的内容。（黑龙江环保厅）批复中明确提出要落实500米卫生防护距离内的居民搬迁安置，所以验收前必须落实。验收就是投产的最后一关。”
季林云在庭审上表示，环保部作出《行政复议决定书》是根据《行政复议法》第二十八条（三）“主要事实不清、证据不足”决定撤掉的。
“经过调查核实，环评报告和批复中提出的工程500米卫生防护距离内，仍然有700多户居民在此距离内居住，没有搬迁。所以黑龙江环保厅作出的环保竣工验收批复与事实不符。事实上7位申请人只有一位在300米以外，其他6人均在100米距离内”，季林云说。
“搬迁是由企业搬迁还是政府搬迁不是由我们来认定”，被告代理人表示环保部只针对“是否落实搬迁”这一事实进行审查，黑龙江环保厅环保验收批复内容与事实不符，所以决定予以撤销。
第三人代理律师补充说，相关文件材料证明“原告三次承诺搬迁落实，至今未兑现承诺。”
针对原告提出的卫生防护距离内商业用房不属于敏感区，不在搬迁范围内的问题，被告代理律师回应称，卫生防护距离针对的是居住区的概念，居住区内没必要区分房屋甚至具体每一个房间的用途，从保护人体健康的角度，都应属于搬迁范围，并且法律上没有职工与非职工区分开来不同对待的说法。
(责任编辑：潘奕燃 UN657)
2016-05-13 16:21:50
澎湃