Amsterdam Court Affirms Jurisdiction in Greenpeace Anti-SLAPP Case Against Energy Transfer

The Amsterdam District Court has ruled it possesses jurisdiction to hear Greenpeace International's anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer, rejecting the U.S. pipeline company's attempt to dismiss proceedings in what marks a significant jurisdictional victory for the environmental organization. The court determined that both alleged financial damages and reputational harm claims fall within its purview, despite the underlying dispute originating from North Dakota litigation.

Core Jurisdictional Findings

The court's jurisdiction ruling rests on two primary grounds. For financial damages, judges found that Greenpeace suffered alleged harm in the Netherlands and identified additional circumstances supporting jurisdiction. For reputational damage claims, the court determined jurisdiction based on Greenpeace International's center of interests being located in Amsterdam, where the organization maintains its headquarters.

Rechtbank Amsterdam confirmed the ruling establishes the court's competence to adjudicate whether Energy Transfer's U.S. litigation constitutes unlawful conduct under Dutch and EU anti-SLAPP frameworks.

The Underlying Dakota Access Pipeline Dispute

The legal battle traces to 2016, when Greenpeace International signed a letter alongside more than 500 organizations calling on financial institutions to pause funding for the Dakota Access Pipeline. The action came in response to concerns raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which led one of the largest fossil fuel protests in U.S. history from 2016 to 2017.

Energy Transfer subsequently filed two back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace entities — targeting both U.S.-based Greenpeace organizations (Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund) and Greenpeace International. The North Dakota litigation began in 2019 and culminated in a February 2026 District Court judgment awarding Energy Transfer $345 million against Greenpeace defendants. This figure represents a reduction from an original jury verdict exceeding $660 million, which a North Dakota court later cut in half.

Greenpeace's Counter-Strategy

Greenpeace International initiated its Amsterdam lawsuit on February 11, 2025, seeking a declaration that Energy Transfer's U.S. litigation constitutes unlawful conduct. The organization had previously sent Energy Transfer a notice of liability in July 2024, asserting that the American proceedings represented an abuse of rights under Dutch and EU anti-SLAPP legislation.

The timing proved strategic. Energy Transfer filed its antisuit injunction motion in North Dakota five months after Greenpeace launched the Amsterdam proceedings, and only after securing the substantial damages award in February 2026. The North Dakota Supreme Court subsequently issued what it characterized as a narrowly tailored anti-suit injunction, though it expressly declined to foreclose all related litigation by Greenpeace International in the Netherlands.

EU Anti-SLAPP Framework Limitations

A notable aspect of the Amsterdam court's ruling addresses the temporal limitations of EU anti-SLAPP protections. The court determined that the EU SLAPP Directive does not apply to this case because Energy Transfer's U.S. lawsuits preceded the Directive's effective date. This finding underscores the prospective nature of the EU's anti-SLAPP regime while still allowing Dutch courts to apply existing national law frameworks.

ECLI court records document this temporal limitation as a key element in the court's legal analysis.

Cross-Border Litigation Dynamics

The parallel proceedings highlight the complex jurisdictional chess match that characterizes modern cross-border SLAPP disputes. Energy Transfer's strategy involved securing substantial damages in its home jurisdiction before seeking to prevent Greenpeace from challenging the litigation's legitimacy in European courts. The North Dakota Supreme Court's reluctance to issue a blanket anti-suit injunction suggests judicial recognition of legitimate competing jurisdictional claims.

Greenpeace defendants are pursuing a new trial following the February 2026 judgment and have indicated they will appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court if necessary. This parallel track creates a scenario where the Amsterdam proceedings could potentially influence or be influenced by ongoing U.S. appellate developments.

The first substantive hearing in the Amsterdam case occurred on April 16, 2026, with the court scheduling additional proceedings for the following month. The case represents what Greenpeace characterizes as a landmark test of EU anti-SLAPP legislation's practical application to protect freedom of expression against abusive litigation tactics.

Broader Implications for Transnational SLAPP Defense

The Amsterdam court's willingness to assert jurisdiction over alleged SLAPP conduct originating in U.S. courts signals a potential shift in how European jurisdictions approach transnational litigation abuse. By grounding jurisdiction in both the location of alleged harm and the defendant organization's center of interests, the ruling establishes precedent that could influence similar cross-border disputes.

The timing and structure of Energy Transfer's antisuit injunction strategy — seeking to forestall European proceedings only after securing favorable U.S. outcomes — reflects a litigation playbook increasingly familiar in international commercial disputes. The pattern mirrors tactics seen in other high-stakes cross-border cases where forum shopping and strategic timing converge to maximize jurisdictional advantages.

For practitioners specializing in transnational litigation, the Amsterdam ruling demonstrates the importance of early jurisdictional strategy in SLAPP defense scenarios. The court's analysis of where organizational harm occurs — distinguishing between financial and reputational damages — provides a framework that could extend beyond environmental advocacy to other sectors facing similar cross-border litigation pressure.

The case proceeds against a backdrop of evolving EU anti-SLAPP protections, with member states implementing varying approaches to combat abusive litigation while respecting legitimate cross-border enforcement mechanisms. The Amsterdam court's nuanced approach to jurisdictional analysis suggests European courts are prepared to engage substantively with SLAPP allegations while maintaining appropriate deference to parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions.

As the substantive proceedings advance, the case will test whether European anti-SLAPP frameworks can effectively address litigation strategies that exploit jurisdictional asymmetries between environmental organizations' global operations and the concentrated venue preferences of their litigation adversaries.