Texas-based company Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of defamation and orchestrating criminal behaviour in relation to the high-profile protest movement in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access pipeline, which was opposed by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and others.

A jury in North Dakota ruled in March this year in favour of Energy Transfer and found Greenpeace’s US entities, as well as Greenpeace International, liable for more than $660 million (around €610 million or £510 million).

Greenpeace International, which describes the case as a so-called SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation), has retaliated with legal proceedings against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, where the NGO is based.

Activists from Greenpeace International and allies were present outside the courthouse in Amsterdam for the first hearing in the case today with a banner reading “ENERGY TRANSFER, WELCOME TO THE EU — WHERE FREE SPEECH IS STILL A THING”.

Mads Christensen, executive director of Greenpeace International, said: “Energy Transfer’s attack on our right to protest is an attack on everyone’s free speech.

“Greenpeace has been the target of threats, arrests and even bombs over the last 50 years and persevered. We will continue to resist all forms of intimidation and explore every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for this attempt at abusing the justice system.

“This groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands is just the beginning of defeating this bullying tactic being wielded by billionaires and fossil fuel giants trying to silence critics all over the world.

“Something absolutely vital is at stake here: people’s ability to hold corporate polluters to account for the devastation they’re causing.”

Amy Jacobsen, senior legal counsel at Greenpeace International, added: “This case paves the way for protections from bullying lawsuits being implemented throughout Europe and beyond.

“The lawsuits that Energy Transfer have brought against Greenpeace International are the perfect example of the kind of abusive legal proceedings that the Anti-SLAPP Directive is designed to protect against.

“By calling upon the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive’s protections, Greenpeace International refuses to allow the bullying tactics of wealthy fossil fuel corporations like Energy Transfer to compromise our fundamental free speech rights.”