男女羞羞视频在线观看,国产精品黄色免费,麻豆91在线视频,美女被羞羞免费软件下载,国产的一级片,亚洲熟色妇,天天操夜夜摸,一区二区三区在线电影
US EUROPE AFRICA ASIA 中文
Opinion / Editorials

Water case should be heard

(China Daily) Updated: 2014-04-18 07:13

Five Lanzhou citizens are trying to sue the Veolia Water Corporation for failing to guarantee water quality and providing unhealthy tap water to residents in Lanzhou due to the benzene contamination. However, on Monday, 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.

(China Daily 04/18/2014 page8)

Most Viewed Today's Top News
...
主站蜘蛛池模板: 定西市| 夏邑县| 汉寿县| 连江县| 桂东县| 东兰县| 阳曲县| 饶阳县| 汽车| 郑州市| 南江县| 神池县| 寿光市| 松溪县| 垫江县| 玉田县| 娱乐| 合阳县| 靖西县| 锡林浩特市| 寻乌县| 望谟县| 开鲁县| 福建省| 莱芜市| 黄平县| 阿勒泰市| 温宿县| 五家渠市| 襄垣县| 克什克腾旗| 仁化县| 阳江市| 江山市| 和田县| 太康县| 昌平区| 宁夏| 化隆| 息烽县| 柳河县| 兴文县| 锦屏县| 阿拉善右旗| 天门市| 镇远县| 岑溪市| 北海市| 象州县| 万州区| 福清市| 二手房| 镇雄县| 左云县| 信丰县| 阳朔县| 福建省| 苍溪县| 察隅县| 敖汉旗| 石屏县| 甘泉县| 洱源县| 遂昌县| 遂宁市| 特克斯县| 泰安市| 罗平县| 五指山市| 南岸区| 建平县| 开江县| 甘洛县| 芜湖县| 方城县| 三江| 桐乡市| 永仁县| 大邑县| 道孚县| 邹城市| 响水县|