Facts of the case

　　2008 Year 7 Moon 29 On [date], the defendant Li entered into a “Mining Rights Transfer Contract” with the defendants Xie, Ni, and Zheng, agreeing that Li would transfer the mining area to Xie, Ni, and Zheng. From the date on which Li obtained the renewal of the “Mining Permit,” Li was obligated to cooperate in transferring the title of the mining rights to Xie’s name. The contract also stipulated provisions regarding payment of the purchase price and liability for breach of contract. After the contract was signed, it had not been approved by the competent authority responsible for the administration of mining rights. Subsequently, without obtaining the legally required permit for occupying forest land or completing the procedures for renewing the mining permit, the defendants Xie, Ni, and Zheng altered the original location of the mining pit originally owned by Li, stripping the mountain surface at the mountaintop and extracting ore. They then dumped the waste rock generated from stripping and mining down the hillside, causing severe damage to the existing vegetation in the forested area. Despite multiple orders from the land and resources authorities demanding that the mining activities be immediately halted, 2011 Year 6 In the month of [month], the defendants Xie, Ni, and Zheng hired an excavator to clear a path and expand the area of the mine pond on the slope, causing severe damage to the original vegetation in the forested area.

　　Nonprofit social organizations with “ Green Home ” The plaintiffs brought the case to court, arguing that the four defendants shared joint fault in transferring and exploiting the land, thereby damaging forested areas and seriously impacting and altering the environment for flora and fauna in the surrounding region and downstream areas, potentially leading to the fragility or loss of ecological functions. The plaintiffs also named the local Land and Resources Bureau and the Forestry Bureau as third parties, requesting that the court order the four defendants to... 3 Within the next month, remove the existing sheds, machinery, stone materials, and waste rock from the mine quarry site, and restore the damaged vegetation. If it is impossible to comply with the first request, ... 3 If forest vegetation is restored within one month, compensation for ecological restoration costs will be provided. 110.19 RMB 10,000, to be used by a third party to restore vegetation on the forested land; we request that the court order the four defendants to compensate for the loss of service functions incurred during the period from the time the ecological environment was damaged until it was restored to its original state. 134 Ten thousand yuan.

　　Trial

　　The court of first instance held that the main point of contention in this case is whether the plaintiff meets the requirements... “ Have been engaged in public welfare activities for environmental protection for five or more consecutive years. ” the requirements for the qualification of the parties involved; whether the two defendants should bear tort liability for damaging the ecological environment; whether the loss of service functions during the period from when the ecological environment was damaged until it was restored to its original state, as stipulated in the Supreme People's Court’s “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environmental Public Interest Civil Litigation Cases,” is applicable to this case; and whether the third party should bear civil liability for organizing the restoration of vegetation.

　　The plaintiff is 2010 Year 6 Moon 18 The privately-run non-enterprise entity registered with the District Civil Affairs Bureau in City J has been legally engaged in public welfare activities for environmental protection prior to its registration, and had been engaged in such activities for no less than [duration not specified] by the time this lawsuit was filed. 5 year, and its registration and establishment had already been completed by the time of the litigation in this case. 5 The defendant has no record of any violations of the law. Therefore, the plaintiff meets the requisite standing requirements in this case.

　　According to Article 18 of the Forest Law, any exploration, mining of mineral resources, or construction project shall not occupy or shall minimize the occupation of forest land. If it is necessary to occupy or requisition forest land, such occupation or requisition must be approved by the forestry administrative authority of the people's government at or above the county level. Subsequently, the construction land approval procedures shall be carried out in accordance with relevant laws and administrative regulations on land management, and the entity using the land shall pay the forest vegetation restoration fee as stipulated by the State Council. The defendants Li, Xie, Ni, and Zheng illegally occupied forest land without obtaining approval from the forestry administrative authority, thereby causing severe damage to the original vegetation on the forest land. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 24 of the Regulations on Geological Environmental Protection for Mines, when a mining right is transferred, the obligations for geological environmental protection and remediation and restoration of the mine are also transferred simultaneously. The transferee of the mining right shall fulfill the obligations for geological environmental protection and remediation and restoration of the mine in accordance with these Regulations. Therefore, the defendants Xie, Ni, Zheng, and Li shall, in accordance with the law, bear tort liability for damaging the ecological environment.

　　In this case, the local Land and Resources Bureau and the Forestry Bureau—the administrative enforcement agencies responsible for supervising and managing environmental protection—are not parties with any civil legal interests in the outcome of this case, and therefore should not be held liable as third parties in the civil legal relationship. Accordingly, the court rules that the four defendants shall, within five months after the judgment becomes effective, remove all existing sheds, machinery, stone materials, and waste rock, restore the function of the damaged forest land, replant trees on that land, and provide proper care and management for the newly planted trees. 3 year; if forest vegetation cannot be restored within the prescribed period, it shall, from the date the period expires, 10 The parties shall jointly compensate for the costs of ecological and environmental restoration, jointly compensate for the loss of service functions incurred from the time the ecological environment was damaged until it is restored to its original state, and jointly pay the plaintiff’s appraisal fees, attorney’s fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the litigation.

　　After the first-instance judgment, the defendant, dissatisfied with the ruling, filed an appeal.

　　The second-instance court held that the original judgment correctly determined that the nonprofit social organization met the requirements stipulated in Article 58 of the Environmental Protection Law, and thus qualified as a proper plaintiff in this environmental public interest litigation. The original judgment clearly established the facts and correctly applied the law; accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

　　Interpretation

　　To enhance society’s awareness of ecological and environmental issues, provide victims with a legal remedy through litigation, and effectively curb mining-induced environmental pollution from a judicial perspective, thereby promoting China’s transition toward a new path of industrialization characterized by high economic efficiency, minimal environmental pollution, low resource consumption, and full utilization of human resources, it is highly necessary to establish public interest litigation for ecological and environmental protection in China’s mineral resources sector.

　　To this end, Article 21 of the "Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Adjudication of Disputes over Mining Rights" provides as follows: “ If a government agency or relevant organization prescribed by law brings an environmental public interest lawsuit against pollution caused by the exploration and mining of mineral resources, or against ecological damage such as geological disasters and vegetation destruction, the people’s court shall accept the case in accordance with the law. The filing of an environmental public interest lawsuit by a government agency or relevant organization prescribed by law shall not preclude natural persons, legal persons, and other organizations that have suffered personal injury or property damage as a result of the same exploration and mining activities from bringing a lawsuit pursuant to Article 119 of the Civil Procedure Law. ”

　　This judicial interpretation clearly stipulates that public interest litigation may be brought against environmental pollution and ecological damage caused by the exploration and mining of mineral resources. In terms of the standing to bring such litigation, it also aligns with the provisions of both the Civil Procedure Law and the Environmental Protection Law: state organs and relevant organizations specified by law may serve as plaintiffs. Moreover, the interpretation clarifies that the fact that a party engages in exploration and mining of mineral resources and thereby triggers an environmental public interest lawsuit does not affect any other civil lawsuits arising from the same conduct. Previously, the Civil Procedure Law and the Supreme People's Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environmental Public Interest Civil Litigation Cases had already provided detailed regulations on the procedures for environmental public interest litigation and its coordination with civil litigation. For matters not covered by this judicial interpretation, reference may be made to other laws and regulations governing public interest litigation.