Relating to the protection of environment and resources of the administrative trial

From 2010.19 people. "" our application (606th)

Text / Ma YongxinLandJudy

Environmental problem is a common problem in today's international society. At present, the environmental problems of developed countries are the main environmental pollution, environmental problems in developing countries are the main environmental destruction. But in our country, and there are two types of environmental problems of environmental damage and pollution of the environment, and have very serious. According to statistics, China is one of the environmental pollutants emission quantity biggest country in the world. The serious environmental problem in China is not only a part of the social development of major practical problems, but also related to the whole development. In an increasingly mature market economy, the construction of legal system step by step today, put environmental protection into the orbit of legal process, the rule of comprehensive treatment, should say is the optimal scheme to solve current environmental problems. Based on the analysis of some provinces and cities to accept and hear the protection of environment and resources problems, carries on the discussion to strengthen judicial protection of resources and environment.

A, environmental resources in some areas of administrative case survey and analysis

Environmental protection administrative cases showed an overall upward trend. In recent years, the number of the environmental administrative cases accepted by the court despite fluctuations, but overall showed a rising trend. Type mainly for administrative punishment, administrative license, administrative expropriation, requires executive agencies to perform their statutory duties for environmental protection, non administrative enforcement in five, mainly in the administrative punishment and administrative organ to perform its statutory responsibility, reflecting the administrative organs in the environmental protection. There is still a certain gap between the level of law enforcement and environmental protection requirements of the overall situation of. Non litigation administrative enforcement actions also occupy a certain proportion and amount is large, this is mainly because the administrative organ has no environmental enforcement, law enforcement is weak.

Regional uneven situation, parts of environmental resources administrative cases less. Due to the imbalance of economic development all over, generally less environmental resources administrative cases less developed areas. With natural resources and regional difference, presents the obvious advantage of a class of the number of lawsuits in an area. Such as Fujian Province, the forest coverage rate reached 63.1%, ranking first in the country, the province level three courts are set up forestry division, and strengthen the forest environment resource criminal trial work, plus the forest public security, forestry procuratorial cooperation, the number of criminal cases is therefore most, less number of administrative cases.

Compared to the environmental resources in such cases in the administrative procedure, the number of environmental resources administrative case into the judicial process decreased. Taking Qinghai Province as an example, from 2003 to 2008 the province's environmental resources administrative organs at all levels and case number 9796, while at the same time the provincial courts of environmental resources administrative case number is only 225, the difference is big. Investigate its reason, basically have the following sides: 1, relative to the previous level of law enforcement, environmental protection departments to continuously improve, forensics is solid, strict procedures. 2, the sewage industry has sustained management and environmental protection departments, reluctant to court, in order to avoid the "win lose our face". 3, the environmental public interest litigation system has not been established, the plaintiff qualification is restricted. 4, the public to environmental cases do not understand and do not understand the environmental protection administrative department of trial functions. 5, environmental pollution accident investigation and evidence collection difficulty, system identification and assessment of pollution damage as a result of not perfect, causes the easily take action in risk of losing, even if is the direct victims of environmental pollution than or very difficult to exercise their rights through judicial way. 6, parts of resources, environmental protection management departments to reduce law enforcement standards, such as shall be ordered to shut down is punishable by a fine, the amount of fine shall be imposed higher but a low amount of fines, the administrative relative person naturally can not be prosecuted.

Land resources in such cases of such cases are a big proportion. In some provinces of the country from 2003 to 2008 the environmental resource case of statistical data as an example, the number of cases of environmental resources land resources in Henan Province, the number of cases accounted for 94%, accounting for the number of cases of environmental resources of land resources in Jiangxi Province, the number of cases accounted for 42%, accounting for the number of such cases in Shanxi province of environmental resources land resources the number of cases accounted for 85%. Land resources administrative cases become environmental resources administrative cases the main force, construction and China's macroeconomic policy adjustment and transport and other major infrastructure construction land demand closely related, of course, did not sign first, illegal, ultra range land acquisition approval, to collect rent land illegal behavior is the result of the direct reason for land resources Administration of the sharp rise in cases.

Two, the main problems of environmental resources trial of administrative cases

(a) legislation

In 20 years, China has issued a single legislative air pollution prevention and control law, the law of mineral resources, wild animal protection law more than 20 Department of environment, resources, ecological protection, but the lack of a embodiment of national resources and environmental protection of the basic policies of environmental basic law. Environmental protection existing in pollution prevention and control as the core, and some provisions are too principle and abstract, in practice difficult to grasp the good. In the current regulatory practices, more applicable is the individual environmental law, environmental protection law has the general significance has not play much role. Individual resources and environment legislation has been unable to meet the needs of the protection of environment and resources at the present stage. China's environmental laws, regulations and resource protection are mostly developed in the late 80's of twentieth Century or early 90's, the purpose of legislation, legal principles and systems with the colors of the planned economy. Under the condition of market economy, these laws, regulations can not adapt to the basic requirements of sustainable, rapid, healthy development of economy and society, not in conformity with the ultimate goal of building a resource conserving, environment-friendly society. Such as sewage charges Interim Measures for the standard sewage charges levied in China under the enterprise pollution control costs, so that some enterprises prefer to pay the sewage charges than countries actively control pollution. Moreover, the wetland protection as an example, the wetland has a flood storage, regulating the climate, purifying water, biodiversity protection function. China's wetland types, but there is no special wetland protection laws and regulations, even if environmental protection law, prevention and control of water pollution and water law and other relevant laws are not involved in wetland protection clause, affects the process of China's wetland protection.

(two) the administrative enforcement of law

The benefit mechanism of administrative subject is not unified. China administrative subject theory is to establish the system of administrative litigation defendant, introduced from abroad. But in the introduction at the same time, also made significant changes in the original meaning of the administrative subject. The original administrative subject theory emphasizes the unity and coordination of administrative organization, administrative organization and administrative organizations as basis, the administrative organ is the administrative main body tissues or organs, they carry out activities in the name of administrative body, the administrative body under the unified. In China, the administrative subject theory emphasizes the independence of individual agency, under normal circumstances, the administrative main body refers to a single administrative organs have administrative rights in accordance with the law, regardless of whether the agency belonging to other administrative organs.[i]Specific to the field of environmental management, according to the provisions of environmental protection law article sixteenth and article seventh, local people's governments at all levels are the environmental administrative subject independent, and the people's governments at all levels of environmental protection, land, minerals, forestry, agriculture, water conservancy administrative department as well as the state administrative department of marine affairs, the harbour superintendency administration, fishery administration and fishing port supervision Environmental Protection Department of the armed forces, and all levels of public security, transportation, railways, civil aviation administration department are independent of environmental administrative subject. Environmental administrative subject so much, they will and interests are not exactly the same, especially the conflict of interest between the people's governments at all levels and the competent administrative department of environmental protection is very obvious. First of all, in the process of environmental cases, the competent administrative department of environmental protection (hereinafter referred to as the environmental protection departments) face a dilemma, on the one hand to maintain the dignity of law, administration according to law, the strict law enforcement; on the other hand, accepting the government leadership, to maintain the interests of the government. Government to develop the economy, to accept the GDP index assessment, to protect the local enterprises, the enterprises to implement pollution or damage to the environment behavior, environmental protection departments should strictly enforce the law, may be the government intervention; if the competent administrative department of environmental protection does not enforce the law strictly, it will receive the victim blaming, accused the administrative omission or illegal administrative acts, the competent administrative department of environmental protection will become the defendant in administrative litigation at this time, the government had generation. "The biggest risk to the shadow" is not the environmental protection department aggrieved, but weakens the function of administrative litigation, administrative litigation "deviated from the basic goal of safeguarding and supervising administrative organs exercise their functions and powers according to law". Secondly, the environmental protection power is not uniform, resulting in departmental protectionism. For example, water conservancy departments pay more attention to the economic value of water, and environmental protection departments pay more attention to the ecological value of water. Environmental protection authorities block management system leads to the lack of a unified mechanism coordinated, resulting in "pipe water depth, pipe mountain food hill, whose territory who call the shots" situation. The national wealth sector tendency, makes the resources management departments pay more attention to the economic function of environmental factors.

Administrative law enforcement difficulty, procedural defects is difficult to avoid. The reasons of environment pollution behavior is usually with the activities of production, has the value and form of complex and diverse, and the consequences are latent and progressive, pollution process is instantaneous and multi participation, which makes the environmental protection departments to have the accurate cognition of fact and its causal relationship between the damage of environmental pollution the. Plus the violations of the enterprises is getting more and more covert, anti investigation ability strengthens day by day, the inspection of law enforcement very difficult, some enterprises in the plant design and construction will be the sewage pipe into the underground pipeline system, high technical content, cannot check. So is the case of mineral resources, prospecting and types of illegal means illegal mining is various, concealment, the construction team and mineral resources management departments in guerrilla warfare, resulting in difficult to obtain evidence, punishment is more difficult. The administrative organ for innovation some means of science and technology, such as automatic monitoring facilities, but because there is no legal basis, not by collecting data of administrative punishment.

Environmental protection departments lack the power of administrative enforcement, law enforcement is weak, also needs to improve the means of law enforcement. According to the environmental non litigation execution system arrangement, the environmental protection department is non litigation execution applicant, its application for non action of execution is because in the form of law does not give the environmental protection departments to enforce the right, the court needs to make up for the "missing", content and purpose in order to achieve a specific administrative act. In essence, by the environmental protection departments to apply to the court, one is to court "gatekeeper" to "positive" the legitimacy of their actions; the other hand through the "must have" legitimacy ", thus recognized and implement" the execution. The most fundamental reason should be balanced by judicial review of the administrative organ and the relative person's interests, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the relative people are not infringed upon by administrative organs. In practice, the environmental protection departments to apply to the people's court there are four main types of non litigation execution: (1) the environmental protection department of the punishment decision was not automatically performed, this is for the environmental non action of execution most cases in practice; (2) the environmental protection department of the sewage charges levied by the decided not to perform; (3) the mandatory administrative measures of the environmental protection department was not automatically performed, this situation is relatively small, because under current law, the environmental protection departments administrative enforcement power is limited, only in the case of environmental emergencies contingency and processing system in the provisions of the environmental protection department the power to take coercive measures; (4) the decision of administrative reconsideration the environmental protection department was not automatically perform. The environmental protection department's own weak law enforcement, with no enforcement power, law enforcement power is greatly reduced. In addition, the administrative penalty of restriction of freedom of person did not contain the power of administrative punishment of environmental protection departments, resource management, namely, administrative detention; and the pollution of the environment, destruction of resources in enterprises in a considerable number of enterprises strength, fine for they have been unable to warning and disciplinary action. In practice, the environmental protection department, the Department of land and resources, Department of forestry, agriculture, water conservancy departments only by strengthening the United with each other, and with the help of the discipline inspection and supervision, public security, prosecution, court of the strength of the formation of law enforcement linkage mechanism, so as to improve the effect of enforcement and deterrence.

(three) the administrative trial

The plaintiff serious omission, a variety of environmental rights are not administrative remedy. According to the relevant provisions of the administrative procedure law and the interpretation of the Supreme People's court, the environmental administrative litigation plaintiff refers to that specific administrative acts infringe upon their lawful rights and interests, to initiate an action in its own name to citizens, legal persons or other organizations due procedure occurred. Environmental protection law of the first paragraph of article forty-first also stipulates, environmental pollution the perpetrators should "to the unit or individual that suffered direct damages". Although the sixth law of environmental protection: "all units and individuals shall have the obligation to Protect environment, and have the right to report and accuse to the units and individuals for pollution and damage to the environment." The prosecution right and the right of complaint is obviously not referring to the right of action, should refer to the relevant administrative departments reflect against acts of environmental pollution. If in strict accordance with the requirements of environmental conditions to the administrative proceedings plaintiff, plenty of environmental rights and interests are violated, it is difficult to administrative relief. Because the main body of the rights and interests of the environment is different from the general rights, environmental rights and interests by pointing to the object in most public goods such as the atmosphere, land, rivers, etc., these items are often unclear property rights, form hard segmentation and separation, consumption does not have exclusive and exclusive.[ii]When these public goods is destroyed, what can the degree and the scope of the claim and the infringement of the rights of such questions as it is difficult to define. In this case, the plaintiff is very difficult to determine the resources. Even if the plaintiff qualification to determine, but some people consider themselves to suit the environment is the final protection of public goods, if successful, will have a free ride, many other people share the benefits; but if lost, all of the cost of litigation will assume alone by myself. In this case, many people will choose to give up the lawsuit. In judicial practice, personal injury often offender behavior not only to the individual, but also cause harm to the public, or in some countries by the national property administration on the damaged, Institute of environmental pollution lawsuit, to some extent make up for the public interest litigation can not accept disappointment. But in addition to the above situation of environmental administrative public interest litigation has no legal basis. With public interest litigation cases the impact of the large scope, involving a wide range, the trial court is often hard to unify the criteria, and is not stipulated by the verdict against the plaintiff, or in matters of the parties does not belong to the scope of the court on the grounds that the parties to shut sb. Therefore, at present in the field of administrative litigation, China has no real sense of public interest litigation.

The burden of proof in environmental administrative litigation should be reasonable allocation. The burden of proof is the law by the particular parties on specific matters undertaken to provide evidence of its claims of responsibility, bears the burden of proof of a party is unable to provide evidence, will bear the adverse legal consequences of their claims system. In civil proceedings, environmental pollution case the burden of proof by the polluters bear. But in the administrative litigation as the principle of the inverted burden of proof, the burden of proof to prove that the defendant in administrative organ legal administrative act. But in the environmental administrative litigation, are not completely true. Environmental administrative litigation plaintiff can be divided into two categories, one is the victim of environmental pollution or destruction, another kind is the perpetrator environmental pollution or destruction. The burden of proof ability, after a kind of ability of proof the plaintiff is not inferior to the defendant, sometimes even more than the defendant. Because this type of the plaintiff for the enterprises, they have strong technical strength and economic strength, especially the properties and technical index of pollutants discharged his own. Evidence of technical content and environment in the case of high, but also has the latent, cumulative, crossing, between them and to be evidence of the facts of the case whether there exists objectively, it is sometimes difficult to judge. According to the causality evidence as an example, in environmental cases, the existence of a large number of a result of more fruit or fruit because of the phenomenon, can be used to prove the existence of inevitability causality little evidence. And in accordance with the provisions of the administrative procedure law in our country, the competent administrative department of environmental protection to punish polluters, there must be a causal relationship between must obtain emission behavior and damage of evidence, but in fact it is very difficult to obtain the evidence. It is because of evidentiary difficulties, in many cases, the competent administrative department of environmental protection that enterprise sewage or that some harm result is caused by the enterprise pollution behavior, but can not be in the right and self-confident to the enterprise implementation of punishment, led to the emergence of "strange phenomenon consultation in the practice of law enforcement", the result is the punishment without punishment, the heavy penalties are light punishment, serious impact on the authority of environmental law enforcement.

At present, the administrative trial work caused great pressure mainly for land resources in such cases. Type mainly reflects the land expropriation and compensation, land non litigation enforcement cases, pure because of destruction of resources caused by less punishment cases. This kind of case is the emergence of the trial difficult, mainly in the following three aspects: one is the change of China's land policy leads to the Ownership Authentication of the evidence is very complicated, there is some evidence after decades, authenticity, if not a lot of investigation and verification, it is difficult to confirm; two is the land in these cases involved more high sensitivity, social, and most of the villagers legal consciousness, can easily lead to the intensification of contradictions, induced factors of instability; three is the land of illegal government led process of color highlight, "illegal" phenomenon is serious.

On the administrative compensation and civil compensation problem of convergence. Environmental resources administrative departments both issued by the administrative license, or do not perform their statutory duties, may lead to the victim by environmental rights infringement. The administrative permission of the competent authorities of the administrative relative person implemented certain behavior, behavior and the implementation of the environmental resources are directly caused the damage, so there may be a problem with the administrative compensation in administrative litigation. Administrative organs should not be permitted but the approval, should be active but not as negative, and therefore does cause pollution damage to the environment, in this case, what is the priority of civil compensation, or administrative compensation first, or the administrative compensation in the civil compensation is not in place in case it shall bear supplementary compensation responsibility? Both how to join? The current judicial practice is not due to illegal administrative license or the administrative organ fails to perform his duties illegal in the direct damage caused by the case, the administrative organ makes compensation cases.

Three, to further improve the environmental resource administrative trial work

Closely rely on the Party committee, National People's Congress leadership, support and supervision, actively strive for the government and the community's understanding and support. Administrative trial judge must be good at according to the specific circumstances of the case, the flexibility to adjust the case is thought, in a timely manner to the Party committee, people's Congress report, considered many factors the handling of cases, the proposed solution is correct and feasible. Based on the principles of law, the National People's Congress, made the Party leadership and support, and then make a fair judgment, and to maximize the elimination of the case may bring negative effects. Land resources in cases such as caused greater pressure on the administrative trial, only for the understanding and support, in order to better achieve the unity of legal effect, social effect and political effect, achieve the node, effectively highlight administrative trial "dissolve" and "pressure reducing valve" role.

The legislative process to promote environmental resources, improve the system for the protection of environment and resources law. First of all, environmental protection should be revised as the basic law, enacted by the National People's Congress, improve the level of legal effect, the relationship and the environment coordinated development of national basic law, establish the national environmental policy, objectives and principles, embody the main position of environmental protection as a basic law, also the embodiment of the constitution "the environmental protection is a basic policy of our country.". The revised law on environmental protection, we must change the existing environmental pollution prevention and control as the core of the environmental law system. We should adhere to the principle of equal emphasis on pollution control and environmental protection, clearly stipulates that citizen's environmental right and the specific make, improve public participation in the program. In addition, as the law of environmental protection technology is very strong, but also should reflect the environmental impact assessment system of public participation, on-site inspection system, "three simultaneous" institutional problems, and should not be just the provisions of general principles system. Secondly, revise and perfect individual environmental resources legislation, and can be considered in the legislation is still not perfect, by the Supreme People's court to issue judicial interpretations, judicial scale, strengthen the guidance to the work of the case. In addition, the people's courts shall, to local laws and regulations as the basis, according to local government regulations. Therefore, the typical areas of environmental resources can be combined with the local actual case first work out local regulations and local government regulations, sum up experience, not following the exploration, when conditions are ripe to promote the country. In short, in the current situation, to perfect the environmental legislation system of our country still have a lot of work to do. The people's court in the trial of judicial resources and environmental protection in practice, continuous innovation, strive for the protection of environment and resources law more perfect and make new contributions.

The proper environment to broaden the scope of plaintiff in administrative litigation, to establish public interest litigation system. Careful analysis of statutory provisions on the prosecution to USA eligibility criteria as the representative of the Anglo American law system and the continental law system represented by Germany in environmental administrative litigation and its corresponding theory, we can find that the plaintiff qualification standard experienced by strictly to the development process of loose, has experienced from the statutory right to a legally protected interest or legal to protect the interests of the expansion.[iii]We relax plaintiff qualification, as far as possible to give the relative maximum protection, which is the common trend of plaintiff qualification of countries. The interest relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant specific administrative act requirements have become more relaxed, allowing the plaintiff of environmental public interest lawsuit right of destruction. At the same time, be incorporated into the range of subjects of environmental administrative litigation is also expanding, the environmental administrative litigation emerged from the victim's lawsuit to stakeholder litigation to public proceedings (civil litigation) development trend. "Any aspect of administrative law is not on plaintiff qualification of legal changes quickly",[iv]The plaintiff qualification in administrative litigation in continuous change from strict gradually wide. China has social groups to support the law of civil prosecution, such as the fifteenth civil procedure law stipulates: "the organs, social organizations, enterprises and institutions to damage the state, collective or individual's civil rights and interests, can support units and individuals affected by the damage to the people's court." But for social groups to support the administrative prosecution and environmental groups can represent its members filed administrative action of environment problem, our country law is not involved. The environment is a kind of public goods, any citizen is enjoy the environment and the protector. Once the occurrence of environmental pollution, the health right of every citizen, property and enjoy good environmental rights are inevitably harmed or threatened. Expand the lawsuit main body, is not only beneficial to the supervision of pollution of the environment, destruction of resources, but also conducive to violations of the law on administrative law enforcement organs or administrative not as effective supervision. The plaintiff qualification in environmental litigation should be based on the need of the social public interests of China's multi-level protection scope, relaxed, in addition to direct interested parties, other do not have a direct interest can also mention environmental public interest litigation. In order to avoid Lawsuit Abuse, lighten the pressure cases, prudent, the pilot selected environmental resources in typical case area, a clear list of the species. Can learn from Jiangsu Province, Wuxi City Intermediate People's Court of the court of environmental protection practices, the procuratorial organs at all levels, all levels of environmental protection administrative department, environmental protection organizations, residents of the community property management sector into the plaintiff qualifications scope, when the time is ripe, when conditions are ripe and then gradually extended to all citizens, legal persons and organizations.

The mediation mechanism is introduced into the administrative litigation of environment. The administrative litigation law fiftieth stipulation: "people's courts in the trial of administrative cases, mediation is not applicable." From the theoretical foundation of this system in the following two aspects: first, on the basis of the idea of administration according to law, the public may not be free disposition. According to traditional theory to establish the system of mediation, which means the administrative organ in the administrative power and the relative people for a supply of sth., it is not only to dispose of the executive power, but is a violation of the principle of the rule of law; second, the core of administrative law is to control the administrative power, administrative litigation must be cutting administrative act is legal, mediation is avoided the legitimacy problems, causes the administrative illegal act connivance, supervision of administrative litigation purpose to become a mere formality. In view of this, the mediation system is great scourges. But as an effective way to solve disputes, mediation has occupied an important position in the Chinese traditional litigation culture. The advantage of litigation mediation in resolving disputes is obviously. Mediation emphasizes voluntarily, in the procedure and the evidence requirements are not strict trial; mediation form is flexible, high efficiency, and more easily accepted by both parties, and thus more conducive to the implementation; and the lawsuit mediation is carried on under the guidance of the court, the judge supervision, prevent the two parties of the malicious consultation, maintenance. National interests, public interests and the legitimate rights and interests of others. Compare with the civil litigation and criminal litigation, administrative litigation has its particularity, but this does not prevent the application of mediation, the mediation of value in administrative litigation can be fully reflected. Now many countries in the world such as American, Germany in the administrative litigation mediation system are generally applicable, mediation becomes one of the main methods of administrative litigation settlement. Environmental administrative litigation because of its own particularity, more suitable for mediation: on the one hand, the environmental protection departments in the enforcement of laws and strength was not as good as the other administrative body strong, while the relative person of environment administration and much stronger enterprises, between the original defendant status is almost equal; on the other hand, the introduction of mediation in the administrative environment in the lawsuit, can cause the pollution victims receive compensation as soon as possible, and the disputes are resolved in a timely manner, improve efficiency, reduce the waste of social resources.

Note that the burden of adjustment. Because of the burden of proof classification is different, the litigant of administrative litigation shall bear the burden of persuasion or advance the responsibility, and bear the corresponding adverse consequences in the burden of proof cannot be. Most of the burden of proof in administrative litigation, the defendant is the burden of persuasion, most of the burden of proof the plaintiff is advancement responsibility,[v]That is to say, the administrative procedure law is not completely ruled out the burden of proof of the plaintiff. But in our country administrative proceedings, the plaintiff shall bear the burden of proof is very limited, mainly in the following three items: one is to show that its "and the sued specific administrative act is legal interest" and the specific administrative act in. Two is in the prosecution of the defendant not as a case, the defendant filed to the fact. The three is on the litigation of administrative compensation, that suffered losses due to the specific administrative acts of the facts. In the environmental administrative litigation, many case related specialized knowledge and information from the sewage enterprises, such as the production, process, formula and the type of pollutant, characteristics, if the plaintiff won't make corresponding explanation, case is difficult to hear, so its bear some responsibility for the promotion is necessary. A causal relationship between such as mentioned above the sewage behavior and the damage of the burden of proof, although prove causality evidence was established mainly by the defendant, but the plaintiff in the litigation process should also have the possibility not established the causal relationship between the burden of proof. If the other party without strong evidence to refute, cannot reasonably be denied such a possibility, then the other party's claim is untenable. In addition, when the environmental administrative lawsuit is filed by the administrative authority of administrative license or the administrative omission by the relative enterprises discharge damage, the burden of proof of the plaintiff should be further adjusted. Although the defendant in administrative litigation from the burden of proof to prove that the administrative act is legal, but the plaintiff must bear the burden of proof on the impact on their own or damage. In the environmental administrative lawsuit, even if the plaintiff show medical records to prove their right to life and health damage, the defendant also can result from other factors of the disease are listed to refute, but if the plaintiff's burden of proof of the existence of causality is very difficult; but if the defendant bear the burden of proof by such is not fair, so as long as the a plaintiff can prove the existence of a causal connection between its damage and pollution should get support. In addition, provisions of the administrative procedure law, the plaintiff must prove that "by a specific administrative act of the actual impact", the provisions in the specific application in environment field cases can be adjusted accordingly, namely in the environmental administrative cases the burden of proof, should not one-sided emphasis on the actual effect or damage.

The environmental resources of specific administrative act to strengthen the judicial review at the same time, the benign interaction mechanism is established and the relevant administrative departments of the. The court of the specific administrative act review should distinguish between facts and legal issues. In fact, the court shall be the administrative department in charge of respect the environment, technology and expertise in fact judgment, should not be to their own judgment instead of the competent administrative department of environmental judgment. For the legal issues, due to the specific application of laws, regulations and other normative documents is the duty of the court, therefore, the standard of review can be relatively strict, the court may own judgment instead of the competent administrative department of environmental judgment. The resource development and environmental protection administrative disputes with the government, a certain period of time the focus of the work, such as the transformation of the old city, polluting enterprises to focus on remediation; sudden public events and environmental protection is increasing, the government according to the requirements of relevant laws and responsibilities, will activate contingency plans in the event occurs, to take measures for emergency treatment. Processing principle of this kind of case in administrative litigation, should embody the principle of the specific administrative act validity review, and should reflect the value and function of resolving social contradictions, stabilizing the social relations by means of administrative lawsuit. In addition, the joint law enforcement phenomenon in the field of environmental resources is relatively common, the court not only to guide and support the joint law enforcement, but also to strengthen the supervision and judicial review, not because of multi joint law enforcement departments neglect and weakened the law enforcement behavior, can not violate the legal rights and interests of relative people. To strengthen the coordination and cooperation between the court and the competent administrative department of environmental resources, establish and improve the inter ministerial joint conference system, information system, the joint inspection system, transfer the case transfer system, etc.. The court should support, help the administrative organ culture and establish a high quality, strong ability of professional law enforcement team. Practice has proved, violations of the law court strong support for the law enforcement environment improvement, containment plays a great role in promoting. At the same time, in the professional division, professional court has not yet been established in the case, can consider to employ the relevant departments professionals as the people's jury, involved in the technology of environmental resource strong administrative cases.

(the author unit: the Supreme People's Court of Jiangsu Province Higher People's court)