风和日丽

达标排污不等于免责！福建适用《生态环境法典》首案宣判_我的网站

A |     AI摘要      福建上杭法院审结全省首例适用《生态环境法典》案件，认定两家混凝土企业粉尘致果园受损，虽排放达标仍须承担无过错侵权责任，判令连带赔偿果农28.5万元。         福建日报·新福建客户端8月17日讯（福建日报记者 苏依婕 通讯员 温东英）8月17日，龙岩市上杭县人民法院对一起环境污染责任纠纷案作出一审判决，依法认定当地两家混凝土企业持续排放水泥粉尘的行为与周边柚子果园受损存在直接因果关系，判令两家企业连带承担相应生态侵权赔偿责任。这是自8月15日《中华人民共和国生态环境法典》正式施行以来，福建省首例适用该法典审结的案件。    “水泥灰飘进果园，侵蚀果树、腐蚀土壤，大片果树慢慢枯死，几年心血全白费了。    India's apex court on Wednesday agreed to hear a petition challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment that upheld a ban on wearing the hijab in the state's educational institutions from next week onward.,After the High Court verdict, the petitioners turned to the Supreme Court. But at the time, India's chief justice declined to set a date for hearing the cases on two separate occasions when the lawyers of the petitioners called for an urgent hearing of their appeals.,"Next week, it will come before the appropriate bench," Indian Chief Justice N.V. Ramana told advocate Prashant Bhushan, who is representing Muslim girls.,The hijab row broke out in December last year after several Muslim students at the Government Pre University College for Girls in the state's Udupi district complained that they were not allowed to enter classrooms wearing hijabs.,They were also reportedly forbidden from entering the examination hall while wearing hijabs.,The case triggered a massive protest by Muslim students.,In February, the Karnataka state government issued an order saying that pupils in schools and students at pre-university colleges throughout the state must wear uniforms prescribed either by it or the management of the private educational establishments. In response, six Muslim girls submitted a petition to the state's High Court, saying that wearing the hijab was their fundamental right as part of freedom of religion.,In its observation on March 15, the Karnataka High Court said that wearing the Muslim headscarf is "not essential religious practice in Islam.",Want to know more? Check out our Koo & Telegram accounts!,Koo: https://www.kooapp.com/profile/sputniknews,Sputnik India: https://t.me/sputniknewsindia。”说起自己的遭遇，果农老邱满是无奈。2011年，老邱在上杭县稔田镇楼岗村下斜角租下30亩地，种植红心柚，后来又引进泰国青柚，靠着这片果园维持全家生计。    2023年，甲、乙两家混凝土企业落地本村，甲公司在距离果园仅50米处建起水泥搅拌生产线，之后两家合伙运营，对外以乙公司名义生产。自2023年5月投产以来，该公司生产线的水泥粉尘持续飘入柚子果园，污染日趋严重。同年11月，不少柚子树开始枯萎死亡，老邱随即找企业协商赔偿，双方由此产生矛盾。

B |     2024年4月，经稔田镇人民调解委员会调解，乙公司一次性向老邱赔付此前粉尘污染造成的果园损失3.8万元。同年5月，企业加装治污设备，但前期堆积的粉尘叠加日常扬尘，持续腐蚀土壤、损伤果树，果园受损情况并未好转。两家企业认为，后期果树衰败是农户疏于管理导致，不愿再承担额外赔偿。协商无果后，老邱以自家农场名义向法院提起环境污染侵权诉讼。    粉尘致害、农作物减产、土壤污染……由于这起案件涉及诸多专业难题，承办法官张兴发多次往返果园、厂区实地走访，委托第三方机构鉴定污染因果与财产损失。鉴定机构出具了因果关系认定，评估机构则根据原地修复、异地重建果园等不同的修复方案给出三档损失认定。    为破解专业认定难题，法院还引入了“生态技术调查官”，邀请农林专家一同现场勘验、取样研判。“叶片上白色结块检测就是水泥粉尘。果园无遮挡区域的果树烂枯、有竹林遮挡的长势完好，粉尘污染和果树受损的因果关系很明确，且与鉴定机构出具的污染因果关系认定可以相互印证。”生态技术调查官、农林专家刘德春解释道，泰国青柚根系娇气，粉尘长期改变土质，果树受损后无法复原，确实造成果农的损失。综合考量果树实际受损程度和果园经营现状，原地修复和异地重建果园不具有经济性和可行性，刘德春建议参照当地征地时对果树的补偿标准来计算损失较为公允。    审理过程中，企业方认为生产线已通过环评验收、排放检测达标，无需对果园后续损失承担责任。    “即使环评达标、主观无过错，也不能成为免责的理由。”承办法官张兴发当庭释明，依据《生态环境法典》，环境侵权适用无过错责任原则和举证责任倒置。

C | 企业排污造成他人损害，不管有没有主观过错，都要承担责任；企业要想免责，需拿出证据，证明损害与自身排污行为不存在因果关系，或者存在法律规定的免责、减责情形。    本案中，两家混凝土企业始终未能拿出有效证据，证明果树大面积受损与厂区扬尘无因果关系。

D | 综合全案证据、鉴定评估结论与技术调查官意见，法院最终认定，两家企业共同排污是果园受损的直接原因，判令双方连带赔偿果农经济损失28.5万元，执行时扣除此前已赔付的3.8万元。

E |     “产业发展必须守住生态保护和群众财产权益两条底线。

F | ”省法院生态环境审判庭副庭长袁春怡表示，本案是福建省首例适用《生态环境法典》审结的案件，清晰地传递出法律划定的行为边界，污染者不能以“已经尽到注意义务”或“技术达标”为由免责，强化对受害者权益的保护，彰显生态环境法典以人为本的生态法治底色。无过错责任的刚性约束，也将促使企业将环境风险评估前置，优化生产工艺，从源头减少损害发生。

Current article:http://jfrh6ar.banhuannunuluchuaiguangenru.sbs/d4trs/20260826/7484.html

Published on:05:07:45