knowledge 7 August 2025 |

Greenpeace v Energy Transfer LP – An early look at how the EU Directive 2024/1069 will operate

Introduction

On 19 March 2025 a jury in North Dakota awarded $660m against three Greenpeace entities – Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund, Inc. (“Greenpeace”) in an action taken by Energy Transfer LP (“Energy Transfer”). Energy Transfer’s claim had alleged that Greenpeace had masterminded an “unlawful and violent scheme” to harm the Energy Transfer’s finances, employees and infrastructure by blocking the construction of the Dakota access pipeline. Greenpeace argued they had promoted peaceful protest and had played only a minor role in the demonstrations, which had been led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe over concerns about its ancestral land and water supply. On 11 February 2025, Greenpeace International filed a counter suit against Energy Transfer pursuant to the newly implemented Anti-SLAPP Directive (2024/1069) (the “Directive”), which came into force in May 2024. At the time of writing, the Directive has not been transposed by any EU member state.  The Directive aims to protect individuals and organisations from abusive lawsuits designed to silence public participation, known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”). SLAPPs are civil cases initiated primarily to intimidate private individuals or organisations. These legal actions are typically unfounded and aim to suppress opposition, impose financial strain on the target, and intimidate them into silence. Greenpeace International’s claim under the Directive contests the enforcement of the US judgment in Europe, arguing that the case in the USA was a SLAPP action intended to intimidate environmental activism.

Under Irish law, the Defamation Amendment Bill 2024 (the “Bill”), (widely anticipated to be enacted by Autumn) partially transposes the Directive in the context of defamation actions. The Minister for Justice has indicated that separate legislation to transpose the provisions of the Directive, in respect of other types of action will be forthcoming.

The Directive and the Anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands

The key elements of the Directive are:

1. It requires Member States to enable courts to quickly dismiss claims that are manifestly unfounded, abusive, lack evidence or harm, or aim to suppress public debate. ‘Public participation’ means the making of any statement or the carrying out of any activity by a natural or legal person in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information, freedom of the arts and sciences, or freedom of assembly and association, and any preparatory, supporting or assisting action directly linked thereto, and which concerns a matter of public interest;
2. It defines public interest broadly as, “any matter which affects the public to such an extent that the public may legitimately take an interest in it.” Examples include, but are not limited to, allegations of corruption, fundamental rights and activities of a public figure in the public or private sector;
3. “Abusive court proceedings against public participation” mean court proceedings which are not brought to genuinely assert or exercise a right, but have as their main purpose the prevention, restriction or penalisation of public participation, frequently exploiting an imbalance of power between the parties, and which pursue unfounded claims¹.

Greenpeace International’s claim relies on Chapter V of the Directive which provides protection against enforcement of third-country judgments. Article 16 of the Directive provides that where a third-country court (outside the EU) issues a judgment against a SLAPP target domiciled in a Member State, that Member State court should refuse the recognition and enforcement of that judgment if it is considered abusive under domestic law. Article 17(1) provides that if a SLAPP is brought in a court or tribunal of a third country against a natural or legal person domiciled in a Member State then, the Member State court should have jurisdiction to award damages and costs incurred in connection with the third-country proceedings. In effect, Articles 16 and 17 of the Directive make it possible for Dutch courts to not only reject any potential enforcement of the decision in North Dakota but to award damages to Greenpeace.

While the Directive provides legislative protection for SLAPP targets such as Greenpeace, Article 4(3) provides that, Member State courts must first assess whether the third-country proceedings (i) “have as their main purpose the prevention, restriction, or penalisation of public participation” and (ii) “pursue unfounded claims”.

A hearing of Greenpeace’s action under the Directive took place on 2 July 2025. Energy Transfer has not yet officially acknowledged the case in the Netherlands. Even if it refuses to participate, the proceedings could continue against it in absentia. The next step is for the judge to agree on a schedule for the case. A copy of the summons filed by Greenpeace is available here.

Developments in Ireland - The Bill

These developments are significant as under Irish law, the Bill (our briefing on the Bill is here) will transpose certain aspects of the Directive into Irish law in the context of defamation claims and it will apply to a broader category of claims in the future.

The Bill includes elements of the Directive to address SLAPPs and amends the 2009 Defamation Act in respect of the Directive by inserting a new Part 4A. Part 4A of the Defamation Bill provides that a defendant can apply to the court to strike out a defamation claim where it is “manifestly unfounded” and consequently declare the proceedings to be a SLAPP. Other measures provide that the court shall take the declaration into account when making an award of costs or any other order providing for the payment of costs and may, if it thinks fit, order the costs to be paid as between legal practitioner and client or on a legal practitioner and own client basis. Judgements in SLAPP cases must be published on the Courts Service website.

The Bill does however diverge from the Directive in relation to security for costs. The Bill limits security for costs to defamation cases and leaves it largely to judicial discretion. Under Part 4A, defendants may apply for security for costs where claims are abusive or aimed at suppressing public participation, with courts required to address any such application as expeditiously as possible. However, the decision to grant security of costs, including the amount, rests entirely with the court based on case-specific factors. In contrast, the Directive applies to a broader range of public-participation-related claims and explicitly permits courts to impose security for costs without a defendant request.

The interpretation of the Directive within the Irish legal system will be key, especially amid ongoing defamation reforms and recent high-profile cases spotlighting the tension between reputation and free expression. While the Directive provides a robust framework for protecting public participation in cross-border litigation, its transposition into Irish law will require careful alignment with existing procedural safeguards and common law principles. The interaction between the Directive’s broader scope and Ireland’s more narrowly tailored Bill may also prompt further legislative or judicial clarification. This means that the Directive’s implementation could significantly influence the development of anti-SLAPP mechanisms in Ireland, especially in relation to media freedom, civil society advocacy and access to justice.

On 2 July 2025 the Dáil passed the Bill by 83 votes to 61 and it came before Seanad Éireann on Wednesday 9 July. The debate in the Seanad touched on many issues such as the abolition of jury trials, the vulnerability of small businesses and retailers to defamation claims, the insufficient nature of SLAPP protections and the lack of a serious harm threshold for claims taken by individuals. The Minister for Justice has addressed these concerns and said that abolishing jury trials will result in more written judgments and clearer jurisprudence. He said that while the Bill will only transpose parts of the Directive, Ireland will comply with the Directive in full by the May 2026 deadline. The Bill is currently at the Committee Stage in the Seanad.  

Conclusion

It is estimated that the proceedings taken by Greenpeace against Energy Transfer will take 12-18 months. It remains to be seen how the proposals under the Bill to safeguard against SLAPPs will work in practice in Ireland and the rest of the Directive will need to be transposed into Irish law for it to be fully effective.

Also contributed to by Toluwalade Bello