Amsterdam District Court Renders Interim Judgment in International Anti-SLAPP Dispute

On June 3, 2026, the Amsterdam District Court ("the Court") rendered an interim judgment ("the Judgment") in the ongoing anti-SLAPP dispute between Greenpeace International ("GI") and a U.S.-based energy company ("the Company"). A SLAPP refers to "strategic litigation against public participation": proceedings alleged to be brought not primarily to assert legal rights, but to limit a public participant's (such as NGOs, journalists, and academics) participation in the public debate. The new EU Anti-SLAPP Directive ("the Directive") seeks to protect persons and entities engaging in public participation against manifestly unfounded or abusive proceedings. 

The Judgment relates to U.S. litigation commenced by the Company against GI, concerning GI's protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. In that U.S. litigation, GI was ordered to pay approximately USD 345 million in damages to the Company, following which GI announced it would appeal this decision.

According to GI, those U.S. proceedings constitute SLAPP litigation under the Directive. GI therefore petitioned the Court to declare that the U.S. proceedings instigated by the Company were unlawful and qualified as a SLAPP within the meaning of the Directive, and to award damages (to be assessed during separate follow-up proceedings).

The Judgment concerns the questions whether (i) the Court had jurisdiction to rule on this matter, (ii) the Directive would be applicable to facts prior to its entry into force and implementation into Dutch law, and (iii) the Court should stay the Dutch proceedings pending the appeal in the U.S. proceedings. The decision is an early procedural ruling, but it is notable for companies involved in cross-border disputes with EU-based NGOs and other public participants, for the following main reasons:

• Jurisdiction under the Directive? The Court held that the Directive did not apply to the U.S. proceedings at issue. GI had argued that the Dutch courts had jurisdiction under the Directive, which introduces a specific special jurisdiction rule for third-country SLAPP claimsin its Article 17. In broad terms, Article 17 is intended to allow an EU-based target of alleged SLAPPs to claim, among other things, damages and costs before the courts of its own Member State, irrespective of the otherwise competent court. The Court, however, held that the U.S. proceedings were commenced in 2017 and 2019, before the Directive entered into force on May 6, 2024. The Directive could therefore not be relied on retroactively in relation to those U.S. proceedings that were commenced prior to the Directive entering into force. The Court held that the Directive introduces a special jurisdiction that is alien to Dutch procedural law, and that it should not interpret Dutch procedural law in accordance with the Directive, as it does not apply in this case.
• Jurisdiction on existing grounds? At the same time, the Court held that Dutch courts may still assume jurisdiction in the ongoing case under the regular rules on tort-based jurisdiction. Although the alleged SLAPPs occurred in the United States, the Court approached the Netherlands as the relevant Erfolgsort: the place where the direct harm allegedly materialized. It emphasized, in line with established case law, that mere financial loss in the claimant's home jurisdiction is insufficient to establish jurisdiction based on the Erfolgsort, and that additional connecting factors between the Court and GI's claim are required. The Court found that such a nexus existed in this case, because GI coordinated its defense from Amsterdam, and the U.S. proceedings allegedly diverted resources from its activities as a Dutch-based NGO. For the alleged reputational harm caused by online statements, the Court applied the center-of-interests test. In general terms, that test requires an assessment of where the claimant's reputation, activities, and public presence are most closely centered, so that a court in that jurisdiction may be treated as appropriately placed to hear the claim. The Court accepted Amsterdam as GI's center of interests.
• Lis pendens? The Court also refused to stay the Dutch proceedings pending the outcome of the U.S. case, holding that the two proceedings did not concern the same subject matter. Under applicable law, a Dutch court may be required to stay proceedings if proceedings have been previously initiated in a different country between the same parties and on the same subject matter, to avoid contradictory judgments on the same dispute. The fact that both the Dutch and U.S. proceedings arose out of the Dakota Access Pipeline controversy did not satisfy this criterion according to the Court: the U.S. case concerns the Company's claims against GI for alleged misconduct, while the Dutch case concerns whether the Company's litigation conduct and related public statements are themselves unlawful vis-à-vis

This Judgment showcases the Anti-SLAPP protection that public participants can obtain from European courts, even when the Directive does not apply. Companies litigating against EU-based NGOs, media organizations, or other public-participation actors should therefore factor potential follow-on proceedings in the European Union into their wider dispute strategy.