Dutch Court Rules It Can Hear Greenpeace's Case Against Energy Transfer Pipeline Company

An Amsterdam court has decided it has the legal power to hear Greenpeace International's lawsuit against Energy Transfer, a U.S. pipeline company. This ruling matters because it gives Greenpeace the right to challenge whether Energy Transfer misused the court system—a strategy known as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). The company had tried to get the Dutch case dismissed, but the judges disagreed.

What the Court Actually Decided

The court said it could handle the case for two reasons. First, Greenpeace suffered financial damage in the Netherlands—where the organization has its headquarters. Second, the reputational harm (damage to Greenpeace's name and credibility) occurred there too, since that's where the organization's main center is based.

Rechtbank Amsterdam confirmed the court now has the authority to examine whether Energy Transfer used the legal system unfairly under Dutch and European anti-SLAPP rules.

How This Dispute Started

The underlying story goes back to 2016. Greenpeace International and more than 500 other organizations signed a letter asking banks to stop funding the Dakota Access Pipeline. They did this after the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe raised concerns about the project. This sparked one of the largest environmental protests in recent U.S. history, lasting from 2016 to 2017.

In response, Energy Transfer sued multiple Greenpeace entities in North Dakota courts starting in 2019. In February 2026, a North Dakota judge awarded Energy Transfer $345 million in damages against Greenpeace. (This was reduced from a jury's original verdict of over $660 million.) Energy Transfer claimed Greenpeace's campaign caused financial harm to the company.

Greenpeace's Strategy in Amsterdam

Greenpeace International fought back by filing its own lawsuit in Amsterdam on February 11, 2025. The organization argued that Energy Transfer's U.S. lawsuits were themselves illegal—an abuse of the court system designed to silence criticism. Greenpeace had warned Energy Transfer about this in a formal notice back in July 2024.

The timing reveals something strategic. Energy Transfer didn't ask a North Dakota court to block the Amsterdam lawsuit until five months after Greenpeace filed it—and only after winning its big damages award in February 2026. When Energy Transfer did ask, the North Dakota Supreme Court issued what it called a narrowly tailored ban on Greenpeace's related legal actions. However, the court pointedly did not block all of Greenpeace International's ability to pursue the case in the Netherlands.

A Timing Problem With European Law

Here's a complication: The European Union passed new anti-SLAPP rules in recent years, designed to protect people and groups from abusive lawsuits. But the Amsterdam court noted these new rules don't apply to this case. Why? Because Energy Transfer filed its original lawsuits before the EU rules took effect. The court can still use existing Dutch law to evaluate the case, but the newer European protections don't automatically cover it.

ECLI court records show this timing issue played an important role in the court's decision.

What's Really Happening Here

This case shows how modern legal disputes increasingly cross borders in ways courts aren't always prepared for. Energy Transfer won a large judgment in its home country (North Dakota), then tried to prevent Greenpeace from challenging that lawsuit's legitimacy in another country (the Netherlands). The fact that the North Dakota Supreme Court refused to issue a complete ban on Greenpeace's European actions suggests judges recognized the situation was complicated—both courts had legitimate reasons to hear the case.

Greenpeace is still fighting the February 2026 judgment. The organization is pursuing a new trial and has signaled it will appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court if needed. Meanwhile, the Amsterdam court held its first substantive hearing on April 16, 2026, with more hearings scheduled for the following month. Whatever happens in one jurisdiction could affect the other.

What This Means Beyond This Case

The broader context here is that this ruling shows European courts may be willing to take on cases involving alleged "litigation abuse" even when the original lawsuit happened in the United States. By basing jurisdiction on where the harm occurred and where an organization's headquarters is located, the Amsterdam court created a framework other courts might follow.

Energy Transfer's approach—winning at home first, then asking courts to block overseas challenges—is becoming a familiar tactic in international disputes. It's a form of "forum shopping," where each side tries to file cases in the courts most likely to favor them. The question now is whether European courts will regularly allow organizations like Greenpeace to question whether such lawsuits cross ethical and legal lines.

The case also matters for how different countries balance two competing goals: protecting freedom of expression and lawful activism on one hand, and respecting legitimate cross-border legal enforcement on the other. The Amsterdam court's detailed reasoning suggests European judges are taking this question seriously. They're not simply blocking American cases; they're carefully analyzing whether those cases might be abusive.

As the substantive hearings continue, this case will help define whether Europe's new anti-SLAPP protections work in practice, particularly when big companies use U.S. courts to fight back against global environmental organizations. The answer will likely shape how similar cases proceed across Europe and beyond.