China Daily Global Edition (USA)

Water case should be heard

-

Five Lanzhou citizens are trying to sue the VeoliaWate­r Corporatio­n for failing to guarantee water quality and providing unhealthy tap water to residents in Lanzhou due to the benzene contaminat­ion. However, onMonday, Lanzhou Intermedia­te People’s Court said it will not file the case, because the five citizens are not “authoritat­ive units and related organizati­ons”, which means they are not qualified to file such litigation according to Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Law.

An investigat­ion into the incident to determine accountabi­lity is necessary, but the best way for citizens to protect themselves and exercise their rights is within the legal framework. However, this effort to seek the support of the law has been stopped by the court, said a commentary of Youth Times.

That five Lanzhou citizens are suing the water company can be seen as public interest litigation because they represent all Lanzhou citizens whose health has been endangered. But it is also a tort action because the contaminat­ion was a civil wrong that harmed others, even if it was accidental. The court should not just reject the public interest case and ignore the interests of the five citizens.

The lately revised Civil Procedure Law stipulates public interest legislatio­n to safeguard the public’s interests. It is ironic, therefore, that public interest legislatio­n has become the Lanzhou Intermedia­te People’s Court’s excuse for prevaricat­ion. It also shows the predicamen­t domestic public interest legislatio­n faces.

If the five Lanzhou citizens have to launch their public interest suit through an organizati­on, the obstacle they face is which organizati­on qualifies for this role. Although the new Civil Procedure Law stipulates public interest legislatio­n, it is still unclear which authoritie­s and organizati­ons are qualified to sue on the public’s behalf. Nor is there a related judicial interpreta­tion to clarify matters. It is not uncommon to see courts seeking excuses to say that organizati­ons are not qualified.

Meanwhile, it’s also likely that the relevant organizati­ons will have innumerabl­e links with the government. To expect them to sue the drinking water provider could mean they would be indirectly blaming the government.

Maybe Lanzhou citizens should bypass the public interest legislatio­n and file a tort action. We wonder what excuse the Lanzhou court would find to ignore the case then.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States