陳華永 貴州日?qǐng)?bào)記者

五月的紅楓湖，高天流云，山青水碧，空氣清新，這個(gè)比杭州西湖大6倍的高原湖泊，讓人流連忘返。

但是，十多年前的紅楓湖，藍(lán)藻爆發(fā)，水質(zhì)嚴(yán)重惡化。人們驚呼，貴陽(yáng)的“水缸”變成了“染缸”。

拯救這顆高原湖泊明珠，催生了中國(guó)第一個(gè)環(huán)保法庭——清鎮(zhèn)市生態(tài)環(huán)保法庭，它開(kāi)創(chuàng)了中國(guó)環(huán)保司法實(shí)踐的先河，開(kāi)創(chuàng)了中國(guó)公益環(huán)境訴訟的司法模式。

故事要從15年前說(shuō)起。

2003年至 2007年，紅楓湖水庫(kù)水質(zhì)逐漸惡化，所有垂線均達(dá)不到國(guó)家標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，最差為劣V類水體。

貴州天峰化工有限責(zé)任公司被指為禍?zhǔn)祝陨鲜兰o(jì)九十年代中期建成投產(chǎn)后，每年產(chǎn)生 20至 30萬(wàn)噸磷石膏廢渣，湖邊逐漸堆集的磷石膏廢渣達(dá)兩三百萬(wàn)噸，嚴(yán)重污染紅楓湖水質(zhì)。

貴陽(yáng)市兩湖一庫(kù)管理局作為貴陽(yáng)市民的公益訴訟代理人，將貴州天峰化工有限責(zé)任公司推上了被告席。2007年12月27日，在清鎮(zhèn)市人民法院環(huán)保法庭公開(kāi)開(kāi)庭審理。

法院判決，貴州天峰化工有限責(zé)任公司立即停止對(duì)環(huán)境的侵害行為，停止磷石膏尾礦庫(kù)廢渣場(chǎng)的使用，排除廢渣場(chǎng)對(duì)環(huán)境的危險(xiǎn)。到2016年，堆積十余年的數(shù)百萬(wàn)噸磷石膏廢渣全部清運(yùn)完畢。

這一具有劃時(shí)代意義的案例，是中國(guó)環(huán)保司法開(kāi)啟專門(mén)化道路以來(lái)受理的第一例環(huán)境公益訴訟。

清鎮(zhèn)市人民法院環(huán)境資源審判庭副庭長(zhǎng)劉海英說(shuō)，2007年啟動(dòng)公益訴訟時(shí)，是沒(méi)有法律可作為依據(jù)，清鎮(zhèn)市人民法院環(huán)境資源審判庭可謂開(kāi)啟了全國(guó)的先河。2012年，全國(guó)人大常委會(huì)修改《民事訴訟法》，正式從最高立法上確定了公益訴訟制度，公益訴訟的價(jià)值得到了最高立法機(jī)關(guān)的肯定。

11年來(lái)，該法庭用一個(gè)一個(gè)的判例，探索著環(huán)境司法專門(mén)化的新路徑，為法律完善，提供一次又一次的實(shí)踐參考。僅 2017年，該法庭就受理各類案件517件，結(jié)案492件。

2010年，中華環(huán)保聯(lián)合會(huì)與貴陽(yáng)公眾環(huán)境教育中心作為共同原告，訴貴陽(yáng)市烏當(dāng)區(qū)定扒造紙廠水污染責(zé)任案件。這個(gè)案件是首例法院判決環(huán)保組織勝訴的環(huán)境公益訴訟案件，后來(lái)成為最高法院公布九起環(huán)境資源審判典型案例之一。這起案件的特殊性在于，法庭運(yùn)用法律智慧解決了原告主體資格問(wèn)題，根據(jù)《環(huán)境保護(hù)法》第六條規(guī)定，“一切單位和個(gè)人都有保護(hù)環(huán)境的義務(wù)。”

上訴案例判決生效后對(duì)立法起到了推動(dòng)作用。2015年1月1日起實(shí)施的《環(huán)境保護(hù)法》明確了符合條件的環(huán)境公益組織可以作為原告提起環(huán)境公益訴訟，肯定了環(huán)境組織在環(huán)境公益訴訟中作為原告資格的法律地位。

以清鎮(zhèn)市人民法院環(huán)境資源審判庭為樣本，環(huán)保法庭在全國(guó)廣泛推行，促使全國(guó)法院專門(mén)性的環(huán)保審判機(jī)構(gòu)如雨后春筍般發(fā)展起來(lái)。

環(huán)境污染案件專業(yè)性強(qiáng)，許多法官相關(guān)知識(shí)欠缺，判起案件來(lái)顯得力不從心。劉海英認(rèn)為，審判庭借鑒國(guó)外的專家證言制度，為案件判決提供了更公平、更科學(xué)的依據(jù)。

周期性有計(jì)劃地排放金屬和爐渣，旨在控制熔池高度。合適的熔池高度有利于金屬與渣的有效分離、噴槍攪拌強(qiáng)度控制、噴槍槍頭損壞程度控制及熔池溫度均勻控制，對(duì)降低拋渣含鉛量百利而無(wú)一害。

貴陽(yáng)市烏當(dāng)區(qū)案件的審理中采用了專家證言，在這起水污染環(huán)境公益訴訟中，訴訟請(qǐng)求是要求被告立即停止排污。

然而，這請(qǐng)求給法院審理帶來(lái)了一個(gè)現(xiàn)實(shí)問(wèn)題：如何實(shí)現(xiàn)停止排污？為此，法院召開(kāi)專家研討會(huì)，專家一致認(rèn)為必須關(guān)停企業(yè)才能達(dá)到零排放，最終判決采納了專家意見(jiàn)。

2015年，吳國(guó)金訴某建筑公司噪聲污染侵權(quán)損害糾紛也采納了專家證言，被最高法院評(píng)選為2015年10大環(huán)境侵權(quán)典型案例。

“至今，全國(guó)法院以我們?yōu)樗{(lán)本，設(shè)立環(huán)境資源審判庭、合議庭和巡回法庭已達(dá)1000多個(gè)?！眲⒑Ｓ⒄f(shuō)。

One Lake:Environmental Governance into an Environmental Court

Chen Huayong Guizhou Daily Reporter

May in the Hongfeng Lake is all about high-level clouds, green mountains, clear water, and fresh air. This lake is 7 times larger than the West Lake in Hangzhou,whose view simply makes people linger.

However, over 10 years ago in the Hongfeng Lake, blue-green algae ran rampant and the water quality was deteriorated. People exclaimed that the "water tank" in Guiyang became a "dyeing tank."

The salvation of this pearl of the plateau lake gave birth to China’s first environmental court, the Qingzhen Municipal Environmental Protection Court, which created a precedent for China’s environmental protection judicial practice and created a judicial model for China’s environmental litigation.

From 2003 to 2007, the water quality of the Hongfeng Lake Reservoir gradually deteriorated, and all vertical lines failed to reach the national standard, and the worst was the Class V water body.

Guizhou Tianfeng Chemical Co., Ltd. was accused of being the culprit. Since it was completed and put into operation in the mid-1990s, it produced 200,000 to 300,000 tons of phosphogypsum waste residue every year. The phosphogypsum waste slag piled up by the lake reached 23 million tons, which seriously polluted the water quality of Hongfeng Lake.

The Guiyang Two Lakes and One Resevoir Authority, as the public interest litigation agent of Guiyang citizens, put Guizhou Tianfeng Chemical Co., Ltd. in the dock. On December 27, 2007, an open hearing was held in the Environmental Court of the Qingzhen City People's Court.

The court ruled that Tianfeng Chemical shall immediately stop its encroachment on the environment, stop the use of slag gypsum dump, and eliminate the danger of the waste slag yard to the environment. By 2016, millions of tons of phosphogypsum waste that has been accumulated for more than a decade have been completely cleared.

This epoch-making case is the first case of environmental public interest litigation since China’s environmental protection judiciary initiated a specialized path.

Liu Haiying, deputy head of the Qingyuan City People's Court Environmental Resources Trial Division, said that when the public interest litigation was initiated in 2007, there was no basis of the law. The Environmental Resources Trial Court of Qingyuan City People's Court opened the country's precedent.In 2012, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress revised the "Civil Procedure Law" and formally established the public interest litigation system from the highest legislation. The value of the public interest litigation has been affirmed by the highest legislative body.

In the past 11 years, the court has used one case after another to explore a new path for the specialization of environmental justice, providing reference for legal perfection to practice again and again. In 2017 alone, the court has accepted 517 cases and closed 492 cases.

In 2010, the China Environmental Protection Federation and the Guiyang Public Environmental Education Center acted as the plaintiffs and started proceedings against Dingtao Paper Mill in Wudang District, Guiyang City for water pollution liability cases. This case was the first case of environmental public interest litigation in which the court ruled that the environmental protection organization won the case. Later, it became one of the typical cases in which the Supreme Court announced nine environmental resource trials. The particularity of this case is that the court used legal wisdom to solve the subject qualifications of the plaintiff.According to Article 6 of the Environmental Protection Law, “all units and individuals have the obligation to protect the environment.”

After the appeal case's judgment came into effect, it played a catalytic role in legislation. The "Environmental Protection Law" implemented on January 1, 2015 clarified that qualified environmental public welfare organizations can file environmental public interest litigation as plaintiffs, affirming the legal status of environmental organizations as plaintiffs in environmental public interest litigation.

As a sample, the practice of the Environmental Resources Trial Division of the Qingzhen Municipal People’s Court, has been widely implemented throughout the country by the environmental protection courts, prompting the development of specialized environmental protection adjudication bodies across all the courts in the country.

Environmental pollution cases are highly professional, and many judges are in lack of relevant knowledge and the judgement of the cases tend to be incapable. Liu Haiying believes that the trial court draws on foreign expert testimony system to provide an even fairer and more scientific basis for the judgment of the case.

An expert testimony was used in the case of the Wudang District of Guiyang City.In the case of the water pollution environmental public interest litigation, the litigation request was to require the defendant to stop the sewage immediately.

However, this request brought a real problem to the court hearing: How to exactly stop sewerage? To this end, the court convened an expert seminar. The experts agreed that the company must be shut down to achieve zero emissions, and the final judgment adopted the experts’ proposals.

In 2015, the dispute of Wu Guojin accusing one construction company's noise pollution and infringement damage also adopted expert testimony and was selected by the Supreme Court as a typical case within top ten environmental infringement cases in 2015.

“So far, the national court has exploit our case as the blueprints, and has established more than 1,000 environmental resources trial courts, collegial panels, and circuit courts,” Liu Haiying said.