- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 10,953
- 0
- 6
The Amsterdam District Court allowed on Wednesday Greenpeace International to proceed with its anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands on Wednesday.
Energy Transfer, one of the largest energy companies in North America with businesses in the Netherlands, attempted to halt a lawsuit initiated by Greenpeace International, an environmental group headquartered in the Netherlands. The court found that employees of the organization, being compelled to defend two US lawsuits from the Netherlands, are unable to carry out their mandate in the Netherlands. The court also found that Greenpeace has taken the lead from its Dutch headquarters in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, which Energy Transfer said caused its financial damage. They constitute incidental circumstances where the Dutch court can assume jurisdiction to adjudicate Greenpeace’s claim against the energy company.
Following the ruling, Energy Transfer has six weeks to file its defense on Greenpeace’s claim. The environmental organization argued that Energy Transfer acted unlawfully by initiating two SLAPP–strategic lawsuits against public participation–in the US. The organization claimed in the Dutch lawsuit that Energy Transfer has falsely accused it of making false statements, having extremist objectives, and committing a crime.
In response to the ruling, Mads Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, said:
In February, a North Dakota state trial court entered a final judgment against Greenpeace of USD $345 million for its protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline, one year after a jury returned its verdict. Greenpeace warned that the verdict could bring a chilling effect on public advocates exercising their freedom of speech and peaceful protest. The group filed a motion for a new trial in March, arguing that seven out of nine jurors had clear biases due to fossil fuel industry ties or preexisting negative views of the organization, among other grounds.
In 2024, the EU adopted a directive to prevent people engaging in public participation from facing manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings with cross-border implications. The directive requires EU member states to introduce laws that favor public advocates. However, the directive does not apply to this case because it has not yet been national law and has no retroactive effect on the US lawsuits filed in 2017 and 2019.
The post Netherlands court allows Greenpeace lawsuit against Energy Transfer to proceed appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
Energy Transfer, one of the largest energy companies in North America with businesses in the Netherlands, attempted to halt a lawsuit initiated by Greenpeace International, an environmental group headquartered in the Netherlands. The court found that employees of the organization, being compelled to defend two US lawsuits from the Netherlands, are unable to carry out their mandate in the Netherlands. The court also found that Greenpeace has taken the lead from its Dutch headquarters in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, which Energy Transfer said caused its financial damage. They constitute incidental circumstances where the Dutch court can assume jurisdiction to adjudicate Greenpeace’s claim against the energy company.
Following the ruling, Energy Transfer has six weeks to file its defense on Greenpeace’s claim. The environmental organization argued that Energy Transfer acted unlawfully by initiating two SLAPP–strategic lawsuits against public participation–in the US. The organization claimed in the Dutch lawsuit that Energy Transfer has falsely accused it of making false statements, having extremist objectives, and committing a crime.
In response to the ruling, Mads Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, said:
The company has also attempted to halt the Dutch lawsuit by applying for an anti-suit injunction in North Dakota. While the North Dakota Supreme Court granted a narrow injunction, preventing Greenpeace International from claiming the US lawsuits lacked legal foundation in Dutch courts, the court did not enjoin the organization from suing Energy Transfer altogether.
In February, a North Dakota state trial court entered a final judgment against Greenpeace of USD $345 million for its protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline, one year after a jury returned its verdict. Greenpeace warned that the verdict could bring a chilling effect on public advocates exercising their freedom of speech and peaceful protest. The group filed a motion for a new trial in March, arguing that seven out of nine jurors had clear biases due to fossil fuel industry ties or preexisting negative views of the organization, among other grounds.
In 2024, the EU adopted a directive to prevent people engaging in public participation from facing manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings with cross-border implications. The directive requires EU member states to introduce laws that favor public advocates. However, the directive does not apply to this case because it has not yet been national law and has no retroactive effect on the US lawsuits filed in 2017 and 2019.
The post Netherlands court allows Greenpeace lawsuit against Energy Transfer to proceed appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.