On the afternoon of May 8, 2020, the Supreme People’s Court held a news conference for the release of the Trials of Environment and Resources Cases in China (2019) (white paper) and the Development of Environmental Justice in China (2019) (green paper), as well as typical cases of people’s courts related to environment and resources in 2019.

The typical environment and resources related cases handled by people’s courts in 2019 covered 40 cases under four categories including criminal cases, civil cases, administrative cases, and environmental public interest litigation cases & environmental damage-related compensation cases. Two cases handled by Haikou Maritime Court in first instance were included among them. Sansha Fishery Detachment v Hainan Lingao Yinghai Shipping Co., Ltd. on Application of Enforcement for Administrative Penalty was selected as one of the year’s ten typical environmental administrative cases, and the case Wenchang City People’s Procuratorate v Wenchang City Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Affairs on Administrative Public Interest Litigation was among the year’s ten typical environmental public interest cases and environmental damage-related compensation cases.

Sansha Fishery Detachment v Hainan Lingao Yinghai Shipping Co., Ltd. on Application of Enforcement for Administrative Penalty

Basic Facts

In August 2014, “Ye Feng 616”, which was in the ownership of Hainan Lingao Yinghai Shipping Co., Ltd. (“Yinghai”), was caught by the Third Detachment of Hainan Coast Guard for carriage of 250 tons of tridacna shells. The ship was arrested and transferred to Sansha Fishery Detachment for further handling. Appraisal results showed that 98% of these shells belonged to aquatic wild animals under first-grade state protection and 2% of them were under second-grade state protection, which involved a total value of 373.5 thousand yuan. The fishery detachment imposed an administrative penalty in February 2018, which confiscated the 250 tons of the tridacna shells and charged a triple fine of 1120.5 thousand yuan on real value basis. Yinghai refused to take the penalty and filed an administrative lawsuit for cancellation of the administrative penalty.

Judgment

Haikou Maritime Court, in the first instance, upheld the administrative penalty imposed by Sansha Fishery Detachment and dismissed the request of Yinghai. The High People’s Court of Hainan Province affirmed the original judgment in the second instance. In July 2019, Sansha Fishery Detachment published an exigent notice on Hainan Daily to urge Yinghai to fulfill its obligations within 10 days upon the receipt of the notice. However, Yinghai refused to act on the notice. In September 2019, the fishery detachment applied with Haikou Maritime Court for compulsory enforcement, and the court made a ruling in favor of the enforcement.

Significance

The case was a non-litigation enforcement case related to administrative penalty. In this case, the ship “Ye Feng 616” was caught in the vicinity waters to the north of Zhongjian Island of Sansha City, which was under the jurisdiction of Haikou Maritime Court. Given that the tridacna shells belonged to aquatic wild life under first- and second-grade state protection, the people’s courts upheld the administrative penalty of the administrative organ against the illegal trafficking of aquatic wild life according to law, and approved the compulsory enforcement when the party subject to the penalty was reluctant to fulfill its obligations. The judgments of the courts affirmed the authority of administrative organs in law enforcement and showed the commitment of the judiciaries and the administrative organs to crack down illegal trafficking of aquatic wild life and to protect the ecological environment of the sea areas of Sansha.

Wenchang City People’s Procuratorate v Wenchang City Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Affairs on Administrative Public Interest Litigation

Basic Facts

During a research in Fengjia Bay, Wenchang, the People’s Procuratorate of Wenchang City found a mass of illegal fixed nets in the sea waters and hence made a proposal to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau of Wenchang in April 2018, which requested the latter to take actions against the illegal fishing activities according to law. The bureau thus launched a special campaign to remove these nets, however, the people’s procuratorate, upon follow-up, noticed that there were still illegal fixed nets in certain parts of the sea areas of Wenchang and hence filed a lawsuit before Haikou Maritime Court in January 2019. The procuratorate requested the court to confirm that the agriculture and rural affairs bureau was in violation of law for failure to fully perform its statutory functions in removing illegal fixed nets from the sea areas under its administration, and requested the bureau to continue to perform its duty for 6 months.

Judgment

In the first trial, Haikou Maritime Court held that Wenchang City Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, as a fishery regulatory and administrative organ, failed to perform its regulatory duties, due to which the fishery resources of the sea areas concerned did not receive prompt and effective protection and public interests were exposed to continued misappropriation. The first-instance judgment ordered the bureau to perform its duties to eliminate illegal fixed nets from the sea areas under its administration within 6 months.

Significance

The case was an administrative litigation case for public interests. Crackdown on illegal fishing activities is critical to the protection of the ocean ecological environment and the sustainable development of ocean economy. As provided in the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases Occurring in the Sea Waters of China II, one who engages in fishing by using banned tools or means during closed fishing seasons shall be deemed a gross violation of the illegal fishing crime and is subject to criminal and administrative regulatory penalties. In this case, the court supported the procuratorate to exercise its lawful right to oversee according to law, and urged the fishery regulator to fulfill its duty, which helped to crack down and curb illegal fishing activities. In this case, the strict observation of relevant rules on the closed fishing seasons and areas, as well as the banned fishing tools or means was conducive to the rehabilitation of the sea which was able to recover or raise species population and improve its ecological environment.