greenpeace fights back against $345 million penalty in amsterdam

greenpeace fights back against $345 million penalty in amsterdam

2026-04-16 buitenland

Amsterdam, donderdag, 16 april 2026.
Greenpeace is challenging a $345 million penalty from a US court in Amsterdam. The environmental group says the American lawsuit is a form of corporate intimidation known as a SLAPP suit. These legal actions aim to silence critics through costly court battles. Greenpeace argues the US verdict should not hold weight in Europe. This marks the first use of the EU’s 2024 anti-SLAPP directive. The rule blocks enforcement of foreign rulings deemed abusive or clearly unfounded. The Amsterdam court now decides whether it can intervene. Energy Transfer insists the original verdict stands. A ruling is expected by June 3, 2026. The outcome may shape how companies and activists engage legally across borders. For Greenpeace, it’s a fight for survival and free speech.

In Amsterdam, the Dutch capital, Greenpeace is contesting a $345 million penalty issued by a United States court. The environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) argues the American judgment resulted from a SLAPP suit designed to suppress dissent. Energy Transfer, the US-based pipeline operator, secured the award following protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace claims the US litigation constitutes corporate intimidation. The Amsterdam district court is assessing its own jurisdiction. This proceeding marks the first invocation of the EU’s 2024 anti-SLAPP directive in a major international case [1][2].

slapp tactics and the greenpeace defense

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are intended to overwhelm defendants with legal costs, forcing them to abandon campaigns. Greenpeace asserts that Energy Transfer’s prolonged litigation since 2016 fits this definition. The organization maintains its actions near Standing Rock were peaceful and lawful. According to Tim Bleeker, a legal scholar at VU Amsterdam, such cases often stem from powerful entities targeting activists [1]. Greenpeace lawyer Emiel Jurjens stated the penalties cause severe financial and reputational damage, hindering normal operations [1]. The group claims the US verdict is fundamentally incompatible with European protections for freedom of expression [3][4].

the role of the eu’s anti-slapp directive

Adopted in May 2024, the EU Anti-SLAPP directive enables national courts to disregard foreign judgments deemed abusive or manifestly unfounded [5]. Article 1 explicitly provides safeguards against such procedural misuse [6]. Greenpeace is leveraging this framework, contending the North Dakota verdict qualifies as abusive litigation. The Amsterdam court must determine if it holds authority over the matter. A decision on jurisdiction is anticipated by June 3, 2026 [1]. Should the court proceed, it could declare the US penalty unenforceable within the EU, setting a significant precedent for civil society organizations [3][7].

financial stakes and potential consequences

The initial $660 million claim by Energy Transfer was reduced to $345 million by a North Dakota judge in late 2025 [8]. This sum equates to approximately €317.4 million at an exchange rate of 1.08 USD/EUR 319.444 million. With Greenpeace reporting $23 million in assets in 2024, fulfilling the judgment is widely considered impossible without dissolving parts of the organization [8]. Energy Transfer’s counsel dismissed insolvency concerns, citing previous large transfers to Greenpeace accounts [1]. An adverse ruling in Amsterdam could empower similar defenses globally, affecting how corporations litigate against environmental advocacy [7][9].

The case exposes a tension between international legal principles. Energy Transfer invokes comity and res judicata, doctrines urging respect for prior judicial outcomes [10]. Its appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court aimed to halt the parallel Dutch action [10]. Conversely, Greenpeace contends the US process lacked fairness inherent to European norms. Critics note the EU directive might impede legitimate claims, though proponents argue it protects vital democratic discourse [6]. The Amsterdam court’s upcoming determination on its competence will signal how strongly Brussels-backed rules can counterbalance judgments from common law systems on sensitive political issues [3][10].

Bronnen


Greenpeace miljoenenboete