The Amsterdam District Court has allowed Greenpeace International to proceed with its lawsuit against Energy Transfer, a major energy company in North America with operations in the Netherlands. The court’s decision highlights the complexities of cross-border legal battles, especially involving strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits.
Greenpeace International, headquartered in Amsterdam, accuses Energy Transfer of launching two SLAPP suits in the United States. These lawsuits allegedly aim to curtail the organization’s efforts against the Dakota Access Pipeline, asserting that the actions significantly impair their ability to pursue their activist mandate within the Netherlands. The court accepted jurisdiction over the case, noting Greenpeace’s assertions that Energy Transfer’s claims of financial damage were linked to protests managed from the Dutch headquarters. This ruling affirms the potential for Dutch courts to engage with transnational legal issues when domestic interests are implicated. More details on the case from JURIST.
Energy Transfer now faces a six-week deadline to present its defense against Greenpeace’s allegations. Greenpeace contends that Energy Transfer falsely accused the organization of extremist actions and criminal conduct. Mads Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, remarked that the ruling represents a stand against what he calls attempts by “billionaires and their polluting corporations” to sidestep legal accountability.
In an attempt to counter the Dutch proceedings, Energy Transfer sought an anti-suit injunction in North Dakota. While a narrow injunction was granted by the North Dakota Supreme Court, blocking Greenpeace from arguing the US lawsuits lacked legal foundation in Dutch courts, it did not prevent the continuation of the Dutch lawsuit entirely.
Notably, the North Dakota courts have previously ruled against Greenpeace, issuing a $345 million judgment related to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, a decision Greenpeace is challenging. The organization claims jury bias and has filed for a new trial.
In a broader context, the European Union has moved to safeguard public participation rights with a directive mandating member states to enact laws favoring advocates against unwarranted legal actions. Although not applicable retroactively to the current case, this directive underscores an evolving legal landscape aiming to bolster environmental activism in the face of legal intimidation tactics.