On June 3, 2026, the District Court in Amsterdam ruled that Greenpeace International may proceed with its lawsuit in the Netherlands against the US pipeline company Energy Transfer. This sets a precedent: a European court is examining the consequences of a US judgment regarding events and damages that occurred in the United States. The protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline took place in North Dakota; according to Energy Transfer, that is also where the alleged damages—stemming from delays, security measures, and financing impacts—were incurred. A US jury had previously ordered Greenpeace organizations to pay $345 million in damages as a result. Greenpeace views the verdict as an attempt to financially stifle protest and freedom of expression, whereas Energy Transfer points to tangible damages caused by blockades, disruptions, and property damage. The case is particularly significant because EU protections against abusive litigation could now be applied to the consequences of US legal proceedings. (apnews: 03.06.26)
Why the lawsuit is so significant in Europe
The Amsterdam court rejected Energy Transfer’s motion to halt the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. Consequently, the company must now mount a substantive defense in the Netherlands. The decision confirms, for the time being, that Greenpeace International is entitled to pursue legal action in Europe regarding the consequences of the US proceedings.
The legal approach is based not on the location of the incident, but on the headquarters of Greenpeace International in Amsterdam. Furthermore, the organization relies on Dutch law and European protections against abusive litigation. This is precisely where the conflict arises: a European court is addressing the implications of a US judgment concerning events that took place in the United States.
US judgment holds Greenpeace liable for $345 million
A jury in North Dakota found Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International, and the Greenpeace Fund liable. However, the case involved more than just calls for protest; the proceedings encompassed allegations such as defamation, trespassing, interference with business relations, and civil conspiracy.
Energy Transfer also quantified the damages incurred in the US. These included over $60 million for additional security measures. Additionally, the company cited $80 million in costs due to construction delays and $96 million in refinancing costs.
EU law cannot simply override US court rulings
The dispute is particularly contentious due to the clash between two legal systems. American courts have ruled on events taking place in America; European courts cannot simply overturn such a judgment on political grounds.
However, they can examine whether claims, the consequences of enforcement, or coercive pressures within Europe violate local protective regulations. This is precisely why the lawsuit filed in Amsterdam goes far beyond a mere dispute over jurisdiction. Through its rules addressing abusive litigation, the EU aims to shield critics from financial intimidation.
Energy projects increasingly caught up in legal disputes
The case illustrates the extent to which protest, liability law, and energy policy have become intertwined. Furthermore, there is growing concern in Europe that national decisions could be undermined by legal proceedings in other jurisdictions. For companies, this complicates the financial planning of major infrastructure projects.