Greenpeace countersuit allowed by Dutch court against Energy Transfer
Dutch court allows Greenpeace countersuit against Energy Transfer to proceed, citing anti‑SLAPP protection and rejecting jurisdiction and EU directive claims.
The Dutch court on Wednesday ruled that the Greenpeace countersuit against Energy Transfer may proceed in the Netherlands, rejecting the pipeline company’s bid to have the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Greenpeace International filed the suit under Dutch anti‑SLAPP laws, arguing the U.S. litigation was used as a strategic tool to silence environmental advocacy. The ruling clears the way for further filings and responses while imposing limits tied to separate proceedings in North Dakota.
Court clears way for case to continue
The three‑judge panel in Amsterdam found that Dutch courts can hear Greenpeace International’s claims under existing national anti‑SLAPP statutes. Energy Transfer had asked the court to throw out the suit, saying an American company with no Dutch ties should not be subject to litigation there. The judges disagreed with that broad jurisdictional bar and allowed Greenpeace to pursue allegations that Energy Transfer used abusive litigation and defamatory statements.
Energy Transfer also sought a temporary stay of the Dutch proceedings pending appeals in North Dakota. The Dutch court declined to pause the case, reasoning that waiting for the full U.S. appeals process would cause an unreasonable delay. As a result, the company must file a new defense brief in the Netherlands by mid‑July under the court’s timetable.
Background: North Dakota trial and multimillion‑dollar verdict
The dispute stems from protests a decade ago against the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota that drew international attention and resulted in multiple lawsuits. Energy Transfer first sued Greenpeace entities in U.S. federal court on racketeering claims, a suit that was dismissed, before winning a substantial verdict in North Dakota state court last year. Greenpeace International was found liable for roughly $64 million for conspiracy, defamation and tortious interference, while two U.S. Greenpeace entities were held responsible for a larger share tied to physical protest activities.
Greenpeace says its Amsterdam‑based entity’s only role was signing a letter to financiers about the pipeline project, and it denies engaging in the physical actions attributed to the other groups. All three Greenpeace defendants have sought a new trial in North Dakota and have indicated they will appeal if that request is denied, keeping the U.S. litigation alive alongside the Dutch proceedings.
Jurisdictional fight and international injunction attempts
Energy Transfer has pursued multiple legal avenues to halt or limit the Dutch action, including asking North Dakota courts to issue an international injunction. In a related development, the North Dakota Supreme Court recently ordered that a lower court issue a narrowly tailored injunction limiting Greenpeace International from arguing that the North Dakota trial was “manifestly unfounded.” That order did not stop the Dutch case, however, and the Amsterdam judges rejected broader attempts to enjoin the Netherlands proceedings.
The Dutch ruling requires Energy Transfer to defend itself in Amsterdam even as it continues to press jurisdictional arguments, with the company signaling it will keep contesting the court’s authority. Vicki Granado, Energy Transfer’s vice president for corporate communications, described the decision on the EU directive as “an important victory” and said the company maintains a European court has no legitimate basis to assert jurisdiction over an American firm with limited ties to the Netherlands.
EU anti‑SLAPP directive deemed non‑retroactive
Greenpeace had cited a 2024 European Union directive urging stronger national anti‑SLAPP protections as part of its legal argument. The Amsterdam court found that reference misplaced because the directive postdated the filing of the underlying lawsuits in the United States and does not operate retroactively. The judges said the EU measure could not be used to overturn procedural facts from earlier litigation.
Greenpeace responded that it would reframe the Dutch complaint to rely solely on pre‑existing Dutch anti‑SLAPP law, dropping reliance on the 2024 directive. The organization also noted the court’s decision still allows it to contend that the combination of U.S. lawsuits and public statements by Energy Transfer amounted to abusive legal tactics aimed at silencing public participation.
Next steps and potential appeals on both sides
Under the court’s schedule, Energy Transfer must submit an amended defense in the Netherlands by mid‑July, and Greenpeace will adjust its pleading accordingly to comply with the North Dakota injunction’s narrow limits. The Dutch case is expected to focus on whether the U.S. litigation and associated communications qualify as SLAPP‑style conduct under Dutch law. Both parties are preparing for parallel legal fights on different continents, increasing the complexity of any final resolution.
Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for strategic defense at Greenpeace International, said in response to the ruling that “for a third time, Energy Transfer has failed to halt our case.” The statement framed the Dutch decision as another step toward holding the company accountable for what Greenpeace describes as repeated abusive lawsuits and defamatory statements.
The outcome of potential appeals in North Dakota will remain consequential, but the Amsterdam court’s refusal to stay proceedings signals an independent path for Greenpeace’s claims. Observers say the case could become a test of how national courts apply anti‑SLAPP protections to cross‑border disputes involving global companies and transnational advocacy groups.
The litigation now faces a crowded calendar, with the Netherlands proceeding advancing under national anti‑SLAPP rules while the North Dakota verdict, motions for a new trial, and possible appeals continue to wind through the American legal system.