AMSTERDAM — The Amsterdam District Court ruled on June 3 that it has jurisdiction over Energy Transfer in a lawsuit filed by Greenpeace International, rejecting Energy Transfer's motion to dismiss. The court also denied Energy Transfer's request to appeal before the case is heard on the merits.

Greenpeace International filed the lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Amsterdam District Court in February 2025. The lawsuit invokes a European Union directive intended to protect citizens from abusive lawsuits. Greenpeace claims in the filing that Energy Transfer's lawsuit in North Dakota is baseless and designed to silence opponents.

Energy Transfer argued in the Dutch case that the court lacks jurisdiction over the company. The court refused to pause the case pending the final outcome of the proceedings in North Dakota. The Amsterdam court ruled that the 2024 EU anti-SLAPP directive does not apply because the Netherlands has not implemented it through national legislation. The Dutch government had argued that implementing legislation was unnecessary because similar anti-SLAPP remedies exist under existing Dutch law.

A North Dakota jury issued a verdict against Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund, and Greenpeace International in March 2025, finding the organizations liable for defamation, tortious interference with business, conspiracy, aiding and abetting property damage, and trespass. The jury initially awarded nearly $667 million in damages. A North Dakota trial court reduced the damage award against Greenpeace to $345 million in February 2025. Greenpeace defendants filed a motion for a new trial in March 2025.

Energy Transfer alleged that Greenpeace orchestrated the Standing Rock protests. Greenpeace argued that it played a minor supporting role in the protests and got involved at the request of the Standing Rock Sioux. Greenpeace provided training and supplies, including lock box devices, to some demonstrators during the protests. The Dakota Access Pipeline crosses within a mile of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation and beneath Lake Oahe, which is the primary drinking water source for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.

Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor of law at Vermont Law and Graduate School, said there may be an outright conflict between the two courts in the two cases, or there may not. "This is uncharted territory," Parenteau said. "Each case is in a very different posture," he said. "Some of the issues that are yet to be settled in the U.S. are going to have a direct bearing on what happens in the Netherlands," Parenteau said. "And which court goes first, or which court gets to a final resolution first, that's another question."

Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for strategic defense at Greenpeace International, noted that the Amsterdam court disagreed with the Dutch government regarding the need for an implementing law. "The court disagreed with the Dutch government and said there is an implementing law needed," Simons said.