environmental shutdown

[Referee’s point of view]

Article 36 of the "State Compensation Law": Infringement of the property rights of citizens, legal persons and other organizations causing damage shall be handled in accordance with the following provisions: ... 8. If other damage to property rights is caused, compensation shall be based on direct losses. Article 70 of the "Administrative Litigation Law" [Revocation of Judgment and Re-issuance of Judgment] If an administrative act falls under any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall revoke or partially revoke the judgment, and may order the defendant to re-engage in administrative act: (1) Where the main evidence is insufficient...

[Basic case facts]

The facts of this case are as follows: Confirmed by the effective judgment of the Provincial High Court, in August 2014, the office of the district competent authority issued the "Notice on the Issuance of the Implementation Plan for the Renovation Work in a District of Tongling City". The "Notice" states that "the negotiation, evaluation and demolition of nine terminal facilities and non-terminal facilities including T Company will be completed before June 30, 2015...".

In May 2015, the document "Request for Incorporating the Existing Facilities of T Co., Ltd. into the Scope of Remediation" submitted by the District Renovation Leading Group Office to the Municipal Port and Shipping Bureau stated: Company T... its original building has been damaged, and its water facilities only have a cement barge and a crane. The land is state-allocated land with a registered area of ​​1,236 square meters and is owned by a port committee in Tongling City. …The owners have appealed to our district many times and reported to our district in writing, requesting that they be included in the scope of remediation and given reasonable compensation. …I request instructions as follows: 1. It is planned to include the existing facilities of Company T into the scope of remediation this year. 3. Based on your bureau’s approval opinions, conduct an asset evaluation of the remaining buildings and water facilities on the shore, and pay compensation in accordance with relevant regulations.

In September 2015, the Office of the District Renovation Leading Group issued a "Letter on the Related Situations on Asset Assessment", which read: "Company T: According to the unified planning of the city and district, a certain scenic spot now needs to use the original Yanjiang Road cargo yard of a port station due to construction requirements. The land use right certificate of the land is currently owned by Tongling Development Investment Company. It has been included in the scope of remediation of a certain port area along with your company's other non-dock facilities, and is under evaluation and review..."

In October 2015, the district authorities conducted an asset appraisal with Company T (the complete report has not been seen). The assessed unit (or property holding unit) in this information is: Company T. The registered assets include: a certain land allocated along the river, cement barges, rubble walls, rubble reinforced ridges, etc.

It has been found in the effective administrative judgment that: Yang and his wife Shi went to the renovation construction site of an ancient town scenic spot in Tongling where Company In 2009, an agreement was reached between the people's department of a certain town and Tongling Port Co., Ltd. for a street intersection in a scenic area of an ancient town in Tongling. The demolition was completed at the end of December 2009 and the compensation was paid out. After the demolition, residents who planted vegetables on the original land were also compensated for young crops. In August 2015, Company The site has obtained a state-owned land use certificate, and there is no ownership dispute with the house land owned by Yang and others.

【Case review】

The Provincial High Court made an administrative judgment that the district authorities included Company T into the scope of remediation and dismantled its production facilities and occupied its production and business premises without the consent of Company T before the relevant compensation issues were implemented. This behavior violated legal procedures, but since it did not have revocable content, it should be confirmed to be illegal. The district competent authority shall compensate Company T for the losses caused thereto in accordance with the law.

In addition, during the trial of the case, the Provincial High Court inquired about the situation and prepared inquiry records for both parties and authorized agents in this case in October 2018 and November 2018 respectively regarding the compensation items of this case.

In December 2019, the district competent authority issued a "Compensation Decision", based on the asset evaluation report and the inquiry transcripts during the case trial, and determined that the amount of compensation to Company T was 69,040.78 yuan. Company T was dissatisfied with the compensation decision and filed this lawsuit.

The court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was the determination of the amount of compensation after the district authorities carried out forced demolition of the remaining building facilities on Company T’s site during the port renovation in November 2015 and it was confirmed to be illegal.

According to the May 2015 "Request for Incorporating the Existing Facilities of T Co., Ltd. into the Renovation Scope" document, it is stated that T Company...its original building has been damaged, and its water facilities only have a cement barge and a crane. …Carry out asset evaluation on the remaining buildings and water facilities on the shore, and cash in compensation in accordance with relevant regulations. At the same time, combined with the contents of the asset evaluation report in October 2015: a certain land allocated along the river, cement barges, rubble walls, rubble reinforced ridges, etc. (the assessment base date is February 28, 2015).

The other five physical asset losses currently claimed by T Company, 4. Slope protection maintenance (on water) and concrete cargo yard, 5. Slope protection wall (on water), 6. Cement foundation road, 12. Electric power facilities, 15. Wharf facility belt cables, are basically consistent with the items in the 2015 asset assessment report, including rubble walls, rubble reinforcement sills, cement floors, concrete floors, power meters, low-voltage lines, and belts (the spare parts section is noted as "negotiated with the competent authority and has not been evaluated"). Combining the time of the port remediation documents, the time of the assessment report and the time of the administrative compulsory measures, the assessment time of this case was before the administrative compulsory measures, and Company T has provided information to the appraisal company on relevant compensation matters. Therefore, the determination of the quantity and amount of this part should be based on the assessment report, totaling 39,040.78 yuan.

Company T did not submit any evidence in this case regarding 1. River course surveying fees, 2. Port and Navigation Bureau design fees, 3. Exploration and supporting labor costs, and 9. Start-up expenses (from 2006 to the present, including wages, travel expenses, office room expenses, entertainment expenses, etc.). Company T did not submit any evidence in this case. Combining the evidence materials, there are only 50,000 yuan in river surveying fees in April 2008 (specifically including surveying and mapping contracts, bank settlement vouchers, and service industry invoices), and 40,000 yuan in dock engineering design fees in 2008 (specifically including design contracts, receipts, invoices, the contract agreed fee is 100,000 yuan, and the actual payment is 40,000 yuan). According to Article 36 (8) of the "State Compensation Law of the People's Republic of China", if illegal acts cause other damage to the property rights of citizens, legal persons or other organizations, compensation shall be based on direct losses. The above claims do not fall within the scope of direct property losses and should not be recognized.

Regarding 16. Relocation expenses (subsidies for relocating companies) and 17. Employee unemployment security and resettlement, Company T claimed these two expenses, but did not provide any account books or information about the company's finances, personnel, wages, etc. to explain the operation and operation of the company before it was demolished. In this case, there was no port operating license, so the company's two claims were not accepted.

After reviewing the contents of the "Compensation Decision" sued by the district authorities, the court inquired and found that the compensation amount was 69,040.78 yuan, which was confirmed based on the asset appraisal report in October 2015. The valuation included 30,000 yuan for the cement barge. However, in this case, the scope of T Company’s claims did not include cement barges. Based on the conversation transcript of the Provincial High Court in October 2018, Yang also stated that "the cement ship has been compensated to Yang." In the conversation transcript of the Provincial High Court in November 2018, T Company stated that "we have no claim on the cement barge." The project identified by the district authorities in the "Compensation Decision" No. 001 of Tongpianzi exceeded the scope of T Company's claims and was inconsistent with the facts. The court corrected it. The "Compensation Decision" being sued should be found to be illegal and revoked.

T Company’s claims for other related losses (including T Company’s legal representative Yang’s failure to participate in business activities for 45 months, petitioning, and litigation wage losses; related litigation fees; Yang’s mental compensation for being detained) cannot be established according to law and should be rejected.

Company T’s other claims in this case have no legal basis and will not be accepted by the court.

【Court Judgment】

To sum up, based on the provisions of Article 36, Paragraph 1, Item (8) of the State Compensation Law and Article 70, Paragraph 1, Item (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law, the judgment is as follows:

3. Reject the other claims of the plaintiff Tongling T Co., Ltd. in this case.

[Summary of Yingting Lawyer]

From this case, we can see that when encountering river regulation and other similar issues, if you have a dispute with an administrative department, you must seek judicial relief in a timely manner, and find a breakthrough to solve the problem and protect your rights and interests through professional analysis and evidence sorting by lawyers. The litigation process may be very difficult and tortuous, but the final result of this case still allows the legitimate rights and interests of the parties to be protected. Lawyer Ying Ting also reminds all parties involved that when encountering such problems, they must consult us in time. After analysis, they should understand the laws and regulations, policy basis, and similar case handling ideas before making a decision, so as not to miss the best opportunity to protect their rights and interests and cause irreparable losses to themselves.