In September 2020, President Xi Jinping announced to the world that China will increase its nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and adopt more effective policies and measures to achieve carbon peak by 2030, and achieve neutrality targets by 2060.

The 7th China EV100 Forum (2021), themed as "Automotive Revolution under the 'Dual Circulation' Development Pattern", was held in Beijing from January 15 to 17, 2021. In the main forum, the first topic revolved around "Automobile and Transportation Policy Process under the Targets of Achieving Carbon Peak and Neutrality". According to the forum, from 2020 to 2030, China's NEV fleet will increase from the current 5 million to 80 million, and an initial industry system for NEV will take shape, with independent and controllable core technologies and a relatively complete industry chain.

On January 30, 2022, China has rolled out policies and measures to improve the mechanism for a green-oriented transition of energy across the country, according to a document jointly released by the National Development and Reform Commission ("NDRC") and the National Energy Administration ("NEA").

With the explosive growth of the number of NEV, the demand for installing charging piles in parking lots increases sharply. However, the installation of charging piles may sometimes cause disputes due to the disputes over divided ownership of multi-storey building, neighbouring relations, property service contracts, etc. In the face of such disputes, in addition to the remedies provided by traditional civil law, the "Green Principle" has also provided a new approach to handle such disputes. This article will analyze the judicial documents that have been decided based on the "Green Principle", and explore the diversity of applying the "Green Principle" to handle disputes arising from the installation of charging piles.

Case Analysis

I. Dispute Over Owner's Right of Revocation[1]

//Introduction to the Case

The plaintiff is the owner of a parking lot in the underground garage of the community. The defendants are the owners' meeting and the owners' committee of the community. The plaintiff ordered a TESLA Model X75D, and submitted an application to the two defendants for installing charging piles, while the owners' committee gave a reply of disagreement for the time being to the plaintiff. After the plaintiff filed the lawsuit, as explained by the court, the owners' meeting voted on the plaintiff's application by ballot, and the PRC of the votes of all the owners and over a half of the total floor area were "disagree" or "agree after renovation". The application of the plaintiff did not adopted by the owners' meeting who made it clear that the resolution disagreed to the plaintiff's installation of the charging piles. Meanwhile, after investigation, a urban power supply company of the State Grid advised that the site was qualified for the installation of charging piles. Thus, the plaintiff sued for revocation of the resolution of the owners' meeting.

//Court's Viewpoint

The parking lot in this case is used for parking. The Tesla car purchased by the plaintiff was in line with the usage and could be parked in such parking lot. But the charging pile required by the plaintiff is not the car itself, and whether it can be installed in the No. 19 parking lot is not clearly defined in the law, which belongs to the new field of science and technology and the blank point of the law. The blank of law can be filled by legal principles. Therefore, the court should understand the purpose of parking lots based on the principles of civil law.

The civil law of our country stipulates that all civil subjects engaging in civil activities shall be conducive to saving resources and protecting the ecological environment. The Tesla car purchased by the plaintiff runs on electric energy, without emission of waste gas, and does not solely rely on fossil energy. Compared with vehicles powered by gasoline, the car is cleaner and more environment-friendly. When the plaintiff also needs to use a motor vehicle, the use of the car can reduce the consumption of fossil energy, and can use the valley power, help to save resources. The lack of charging pile will bring inconvenience to the plaintiff when he uses the car, thus reducing the plaintiff's frequency and mileage of driving the car, and making it difficult to take advantage of the trough power. The reduction in the use of clean energy by the plaintiff will be transferred to gas-powered vehicles, which will increase the burden on the ecological environment. Therefore, giving convenience to the plaintiff to use the vehicles powered by clean energy is conducive to saving resources and protecting the ecological environment. Based on these civil law principles, the charging pile should be deemed as an indispensable facility to enable the charging vehicle to achieve the purpose of use. In addition, the charging pile involved in this case is not a removable device and only needs to be installed on a fixed basis. Therefore, the court affirmed that the plaintiff is entitled to install the charging pile in the No. 19 parking lot.

//Result of the Judgment

The resolution of the owners' meeting infringes upon the plaintiff's rights and interests, and is also inconsistent with the principles of energy saving and environmental protection under the civil law, and therefore should be revoked according to the law.

//Analysis of the Case

The application of the "Green Principle" in this Case is to "provide a valuable guide when the legal rules are vague". [2] Seeing as this case occurred earlier, the plaintiff and other owners had different opinions on whether "installing the charging pile" constituted the owner's legitimate right to the exclusive parts of a building under Article 71 of the Property Law of the PRC (as amended by Article 272 of the Civil Code of the PRC) [3]. In similar situations, it is usually easier for the court to find in favor of the majority. However, in this case, the court cited the "Green Principle" in favor of the minority. Although the plaintiff's use of clean energy vehicles was a manifestation of the plaintiff's exercise of private rights, the use of NEV bears more significant eco-environmental interests and has a certain value for the public, the court gave priority to the use of NEV in the process of balancing public interests. Therefore, under the premise that the other owners were unable to prove that the installation of charging piles would have potential safety hazards, the court supported the plaintiff's claim to revoke the resolution of the owners' meeting on prohibiting the plaintiff from installation of charging piles.

II. Dispute Over Neighbouring Relations[4]

//Introduction to the Case

Both the plaintiff and the defendant are owners of the same building in the same community. The plaintiff, Wang, is the owner of the No. 2 parking lot, the plaintiff, Yang, is the owner of the No. 3 parking lot, and the defendant, Miao, is the owner of the No. 1 parking lot. The three parking lots are adjacent to each other. The defendant purchased a Tesla car which needs charging piles, so he applied to the property management company for installing charging piles. The property management company signed and stamped on such registration certificate. Thereafter, the Tesla's employee came to the site to make exploration. The defendant communicated with Bian, the staff of the property management company, about the location of installation, intending to install the charging piles on the back of the pillars in the middle of the aisle between the No.2 parking lot and the No.3 parking lot. Bian gave his consent. Then, the power company dispatched employees to install a separate meter at the distribution room. The Tesla's staff installed the charging piles at the above location. The defendant, Miao, took photos of the installation location and informed Bian. Bian indicated that it was aware. The plaintiffs deemed that the acts of the two defendants had infringed their legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, the plaintiffs reported the matter to the property management company. The property management company invited the parties to conduct negotiation, which was failed. The plaintiffs then sued the court to remove the charging piles that had been installed.

//Court's Viewpoint

This case focuses on whether the defendants' acts of installing the charging piles damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiffs and any third party. Based on the facts of this case, the charging vehicles, which use electrical energy instead of fuel as their main power source, are encouraged and supported by the country because of their energy-saving and environment-friendly features. However, prior to the installation of charging facilities, the vehicle owners are required to apply to the property management company for approval, and then the charging facilities will be installed by qualified professionals. In this case, the defendants completed the application for electricity utilization in accordance with the statutory procedures. With the consent and cooperation of the property management company, the special electricity meters for the charging piles have been installed, and the wires connecting the power supply to the charging piles have all been laid. The charging piles were installed at the location approved by the property management company. The plaintiff raised objection to the location of the charging piles mainly due to the lack of prior consent of the plaintiff, and worries about leakage and passage, etc. The court holds that there is no applicable law or regulation which requires the neighbouring party's consent before installing charging piles, and the only requirement is to go through the relevant formalities for approval. The Power Supply Bureau has already audited and assigned employees to install an electricity meter in the distribution room, while the plaintiff has no evidence to prove that the defendant's installation of the charging piles in the garage violated the regulations on fire control management.

//Result of the Judgment

All the claims of the plaintiff were dismissed.

//Analysis of the Case

In this case, the court cited the "Green Principle" to determine whether the installation of the charging piles without the neighbouring party's consent infringes the neighbouring right, which is the applicable approach to fill the legal loopholes. According to the provision of Article 92 of the Property Law of PRC (Article 296 of the Civil Code of PRC) regarding "to use a adjacent real property to avoid causing any damage" [5], any use that may cause damages to the neighbouring party shall be avoided to the greatest extent. In this case, the plaintiff and the third party raised objection to the location of the charging piles mainly due to the lack of prior consent of the plaintiff, and worries about leakage and passage, etc. Considering that the normal operation of NEV is closely related to charging piles, and the promotion of NEV complies with national policy requirements, which is more in line with the "Green Principle" on the requirements for civil entities engaging in civil activities, and given that the defendant has obtained the property management company's consent, the court is inclined to conclude that the installation of charging piles, which is without the neighbouring party's consent and results in no material impediment, does not constitute an infringement of neighbouring rights.

III. Dispute over Property Service Contract [6]

//Introduction to the Case

After purchasing the Li Auto plug-in hybrid MUV, the plaintiff applied to the State Grid Corporation of China (the "SGCC") for the installation of charging piles in the involved parking lot. However, the plaintiff was informed that the application materials should include the relevant evidence proving that the property management company of the community (the defendant) gave permission for construction. As a result, the plaintiff requested the defendant to present such permission. But made a reply on June 28, 2020 that the distribution capacity design and cable load of the underground garage of the community did not reserve the capacity and electric load for the installation of car charging piles and refused to install them. The plaintiff then sued the defendant to immediately perform its obligation of issuing a certificate on consenting to the installation of charging piles of NEV, and cooperating with the national power supply company and the staff of the 4S store to install the charging piles of NEV in the No. 360 parking lot.

//Court's Viewpoint

Article 9 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law of the PRC provides that the parties to civil legal relations shall conduct civil activities contributing to the conservation of resources and protection of environment. Development of electric vehicles is of great significance to ensuring energy safety, promoting energy conservation and emission reduction, and preventing and controlling air pollution. Based on the above principles, the court held that installation of charging piles is an indispensable device for electric vehicles, and the plaintiff shall have the right to install supporting charging piles in the parking lots used by the plaintiff. The construction of charging facilities is an important initiative to promote the application of electric vehicles. The relevant departmental rules issued by the ministries and commissions of PRC, and administrative rules issued by Fujian Province and Xiamen City all require property service providers to play an active role, cooperate and provide convenience for the construction of charging facilities. According to Paragraph 13 of Article 24 of the Property Service Contract, the defendant's obligations shall include other obligations provided for in laws and regulations. When the Plaintiff applied for building charging piles in the parking lots used by it, as required by the power supply company, relevant certificates shall be issued by the property management company of the community concerning construction permit. Such certificates shall be subject to Paragraph 13 of Article 24 of the aforesaid Contract. The branch of the Overseas Chinese Property Company shall perform the contractual obligations.

The Defendant's defenses that installation of the charging piles will lead to messy cables in the garage and there are potential safety risks were not supported by sufficient evidences. Furthermore, the approval of the plaintiff's installation of the charging piles does not mean that the property service provider may loose or abandon its management. The defendant is still entitled to timely exercise the property management power to correct and stop infringement when it discovers it and the defendant shall not use this as a reason to oppose the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff.

//Result of Judgment

The Defendant shall present a certificate to the Plaintiff on its approval of installation of the charging piles of NEV within five days from the effective date of this judgment.

//Analysis of the Case

In the present case, the court cited the "Green Principle" to interpret the miscellaneous clause in the property service contract, holding that to cooperate with the owners and according to the requirements of the power supply enterprise, the issuance of the certificate approving the installation and construction of the charging piles was the property management company's obligation under the contract. Even if there is no explicit stipulation in the property service contract that the property management company is obliged to cooperate with the installation of charging piles, but relying on the requirements of the "Green Principle" and the guidance of national policies and regulations, the promotion of NEV is bound to need relevant supporting facilities to follow up. The civil law should provide a solid legal guarantee for it, and the terms in the contract that can be generally interpreted should be followed in line with the requirements of the "Green Principle".

My Opinion

Through analysis of the above three different disputes related to the installation of charging piles, we can find that the attempt to refine the "Green Principle" had begun when the General Provisions of the Civil Law came into effect, but most legal professionals considered the principle to be an "advocacy" clause, or even a "zombie" clause. Such understanding is obviously not in line with the intention of promoting "Greening" and implementing more than 30 "green rules " in the Civil Code of PRC. As a basic principle of the Civil Law of PRC, the "Green Principle" also has a lot of possible interpretations in judicial decisions, and can have a huge impact on remedies for private rights and interests. The application approach of the "Green Principle" disclosed in this article is of great significance to fill the legal loopholes and explain the terms of the contract.

References

[1] See [2018] Hu 0106 Min Chu No. 3616, People's Court of Jingan District, Shanghai, Plaintiff Liu Li v. Defendant owners' meeting of Greenview Court, Jingan District, Shanghai and Owners' Committee of Greenview Court, Jingan District, Shanghai concerning the owners' right of revocation.

[2] See Preliminary Analysis on Consolidating the Judicial Application of the Green Principle in the Civil Code [J]. Application of Law, 2020 (23): 30-38.

[3] Article 71 of the Property Law of the PRC provides that “An owner has the rights to possess, use, seek profits from and dispose of the exclusive parts of the building. No owner may, when exercising his or its rights, endanger the safety of the building or damage the legitimate rights and interests of any other owner.”

Article 272 of the Civil Code of the PRC provides that “The owners have the right to possess, use, enjoy, and dispose of the private portions of a building. No owner may, in exercising rights, endanger the safety of the building or infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of any other owner.”

[4] See [2019] Hu 0114 Min Chu No. 20021, People's Court of Jiading District, Shanghai, Wang Hexiang and Yang Jie v. Defendants Wang Haixia and Miao Hanmin on neighbouring relation dispute.

[5] Article 92 of the Property Law of the PRC, “In case the right holder of a real property has to use a adjacent real property for reasons of using water, drainage, passage or laying pipelines, etc, he shall do his best to avoid causing any damage to the right holder of the adjacent real property; if any damage is caused, he shall make corresponding compensations.”

Article 296 of the Civil Code of the PRC, “Where the right holder of an immovable uses the neighboring immovable for water use, drainage, passage, laying pipelines, or any other purpose, the right holder shall do the best to avoid causing any damage to the right holder of the neighboring immovable.”

[6] See [2020] Min 0206 Min Chu No. 5844, People's Court of Huli District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province, Zeng Haishan v. Guangdong Overseas Chinese Property Development Co., Ltd. Xiamen Branch on property service contract dispute.

Other Bibliographies

Lü Zhongmei. Several Thoughts on Implementing the Green Terms of the Civil Code [J]. Application of Law, 2020 (23): 8-13.

Huang Xisheng. Interpretation Approach of Environmental Rights in the Era of the Civil Code — With Concurrent Discussion of the Civil Law Function of the Green Principle [J]. Modern Law Science, 2020, 42 (04): 99-112.

Yin Tian. Legislative Research on Basic Principles of Civil Law and Their Adjustment Objects [J]. Jurists, 2016 (05): 10-19 + 175.