From Watts Up With That?

h/t ResourceGuy – Greenpeace appears to think European courts have pre-eminence over US courts, even for events which happened in the USA.

Greenpeace Asks a Dutch Court to Reverse an American Verdict

The group wants to use European law as a shield to disrupt American infrastructure projects.

By  Michael Toth
Dec. 5, 2025 at 5:27 pm ET

A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace in March to pay pipeline company Energy Transfer $667 million for the environmental group’s rogue campaign to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. Now, Greenpeace is trying to get a Dutch court to nullify the jury award, which the trial judge reduced to $345 million in October. …

… During the monthslong standoff, reports spread of protesters shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers. 

… Kelcy Warren, then Energy Transfer’s CEO, didn’t take those losses sitting down. “What they did to us is wrong,” he said in 2017 of the environmental groups behind the demonstrations, “and they’re going to pay for it.”

…

Greenpeace had a Plan B, however. On the eve of the trial, Greenpeace International filed a new lawsuit with the District Court of Amsterdam, where the group is based. The suit claims that Energy Transfer’s litigation violated Greenpeace International’s rights under the European Union’s 2024 anti-Slapp law, an anagram for strategic litigation against public participation. The law seeks to protect journalists and nonprofit organizations from meritless lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate them.

…Read more: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/greenpeace-asks-a-dutch-court-to-reverse-an-american-verdict-ec50b1e8?st=6ruYyM

If Greenpeace stood by the roadside and waved a few banners I would have wholeheartedly supported their right to do so. But “… shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers …” goes way beyond what I would consider to be legitimate protest.

Greenpeace USA doesn’t appear have enough assets to cover this fine (approx. $4.8 million US net assets in 2023 according to ProPublica), so perhaps they are trying to cut their losses? Sacrifice the US branch, but shield the main parent organisation in the Netherlands from a fine which could devastate their finances? According to 2024 accounts, Greenpeace International has approx €90 million in assets.

Any attempt to shield European organisations by overruling US court judgments for events which occurred in the USA could further damage trans-Atlantic relations. Relations are particularly strained right now, thanks to an EU attempt to $210 million fine against x / twitter, over a dispute regarding the blue verified tick, not censoring free speech the way the EU wants, and not providing EU “researchers” with full access to internal X company secrets.

Did the European Union Just Try to Illegally Censor US Free Speech?

Obviously, the USA has plenty of levers which can be pulled to retaliate against arrogant EU attempts to usurp the judgements of US courts and use in my opinion questionable tactics to attack the success of US tech companies.

What can I say – watch this space.