Dutch Court Says It Can Hear Greenpeace's Case Against U.S. Pipeline Company

A court in Amsterdam has ruled that it has the power to hear a lawsuit brought by Greenpeace International against Energy Transfer, a U.S. pipeline company. Energy Transfer had tried to get the case thrown out, arguing the Dutch court shouldn't be involved. The court disagreed. This is a significant win for Greenpeace.

The ruling matters because it allows the case to move forward in the Netherlands, even though the original conflict started in North Dakota.

What the Court Decided

The Amsterdam District Court found two reasons why it should hear this case.

First, for money damages: The court said Greenpeace suffered financial harm in the Netherlands, so Dutch courts have jurisdiction—meaning they have the power to decide the case.

Second, for damage to Greenpeace's reputation: The court noted that Greenpeace International's headquarters is in Amsterdam, so the organization's center of interests is in the Netherlands. That was enough to give the court jurisdiction on this part of the case too.

Rechtbank Amsterdam confirmed in its ruling that the court can now decide whether Energy Transfer's U.S. litigation was unlawful under Dutch and European law protecting people from abusive lawsuits.

The Background: What Started This Fight

The conflict began in 2016. Greenpeace International and more than 500 other organizations signed a letter asking banks not to fund the Dakota Access Pipeline. They did this because the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and their supporters had raised serious concerns about the project. Between 2016 and 2017, one of the largest environmental protests in U.S. history took place to oppose it.

Energy Transfer responded by filing two lawsuits. One targeted American Greenpeace groups (Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund), and the other targeted Greenpeace International. The North Dakota lawsuit began in 2019. In February 2026, a North Dakota court ruled in Energy Transfer's favor and told Greenpeace to pay $345 million. (This amount was reduced from an earlier jury verdict of more than $660 million.)

How Greenpeace Fought Back

Greenpeace International didn't just accept the North Dakota judgment. On February 11, 2025, it filed its own lawsuit in Amsterdam. Greenpeace argued that Energy Transfer's U.S. lawsuits were an abuse of the legal system—a tactic known as a "SLAPP" (strategic lawsuit against public participation). These are lawsuits filed mainly to silence critics, not to win on the actual merits.

In July 2024, before the Amsterdam lawsuit, Greenpeace had already warned Energy Transfer that it considered the U.S. cases abusive under Dutch and European law.

The timeline is interesting: Energy Transfer didn't ask a North Dakota court to block Greenpeace's Amsterdam case until five months after Greenpeace filed it—and only after winning the big damages award in February 2026. When the North Dakota Supreme Court did issue a blocking order, it carefully said this order didn't prevent Greenpeace from pursuing its case in the Netherlands.

A Limitation on EU Protection

The Amsterdam court noted something important about European anti-SLAPP law: it only applies to new lawsuits filed after the law took effect. Energy Transfer's U.S. lawsuits started before the EU's anti-SLAPP protections were in place. So those protections don't apply to this case.

This shows that Europe's new anti-SLAPP law looks forward, not backward. However, the Amsterdam court could still apply Dutch law, which offers similar protections.

ECLI court records document this detail.

Two Cases Running in Parallel

Right now, there are two sets of legal proceedings happening at the same time: the appeal in North Dakota and the case in Amsterdam.

Energy Transfer's approach is worth understanding: it secured a large damages award in its home court first, then tried to block Greenpeace from challenging the legitimacy of that lawsuit in Europe. The North Dakota court was cautious, though—it didn't issue a blanket order stopping all of Greenpeace's European cases. That suggests even U.S. judges recognized that Europe has a legitimate right to weigh in on cases involving European organizations.

Greenpeace is pushing for a new trial in North Dakota and plans to appeal. Meanwhile, the Amsterdam court held its first substantive hearing on April 16, 2026, with more hearings scheduled for May. The two cases could influence each other as they move forward.

Why This Matters Beyond This One Case

The Amsterdam court's decision signals something broader: European courts are willing to take on cases about abusive litigation tactics, even when the original lawsuits happened in the United States. The court grounded its decision in two practical points—where the harm occurred and where the organization is based. This framework could become a model for other cross-border disputes.

Energy Transfer's strategy—winning big at home before trying to stop the other side from challenging it in Europe—is becoming a familiar playbook in international business disputes. It's a kind of forum shopping: filing where you think you'll win, then trying to prevent the other side from disputing that win elsewhere.

For those who follow international law, this case shows why timing and location matter enormously in cross-border disputes. Companies and organizations now have to think strategically not just about where to sue, but about whether their opponents might sue them elsewhere and how to prepare for that.

The broader context here is that Europe is increasingly serious about protecting free speech and activism from being silenced by expensive lawsuits. Different European countries are taking different approaches, but the Amsterdam court's nuanced ruling suggests that European judges understand the stakes and are prepared to engage seriously with SLAPP allegations. At the same time, they're being careful not to overstep where other countries have legitimate say.

As this case continues, it will test a real question: Can European anti-SLAPP laws effectively protect groups like Greenpeace when they operate globally but face lawsuits in countries like the United States that may have different protections? The case proceeds against a backdrop of asymmetry—large companies may have resources and legal strategies spread across many jurisdictions, while advocacy groups may be more vulnerable to being sued in unfriendly forums.