Greenpeace and its activists been involved in various litigation matters, generally regarding its environmental advocacy. Litigation has involved lawsuits and government actions.
Argentina YearCase or actionTypeRole 2019 Yaguareté amparo (Gran Chaco deforestation) Environmental / species protection Plaintiff In 2019, Greenpeace Argentina filed a judicial amparo against the provinces of Chaco, Salta, Formosa and Santiago del Estero and the national state, for failing to enforce the Forest Law and destroying the habitat of jaguars. It sought to have zero deforestation in jaguar territory and a management plan under Law 25.463. The Supreme Court convened a public hearing with the organization in February 2022, one of only four cases selected for public hearing that year, and Greenpeace returned to the court in 2024 seeking suspension of renewed clearing authorizations in Chaco. 2026 Glacier Law reform collective amparo Constitutional / glacier protection Plaintiff In May 2026, Greenpeace, the Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales and the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a collective amparo in the federal court of La Pampa against the April 2026 reform of the Glacier Law, arguing that the reform is unconstitutional. The amparo, joined by more than 850,000 adherents, sought suspension of the reform.
Australia YearCase or actionTypeRole 1994 Greenpeace Australia Ltd v. Redbank Power Company Climate / development consent Applicant In 1994, Greenpeace Australia challenged the development consent for the Redbank power station in the Hunter Valley. It argued before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales that the plant's net increase in carbon dioxide emissions contradicted emission reduction policies. In 1994, it was held that the applicable law did not prohibit new power stations, dismissing the appeal and approving the power station subject to mitigation conditions. The case was Australia's first climate change case. 2021 AGL Energy Ltd v. Greenpeace Australia Pacific Trademark / copyright Defendant In May 2021, AGL Energy sued Greenpeace Australia Pacific in the Federal Court of Australia over a campaign that used the company's logo with the tagline "Australia's Greatest Liability". In June 2021, the court dismissed the trademark claim and held that most of the campaign was fair dealing for parody or satire under the Copyright Act. Limited injunctive relief was granted over a small number of posts and placards, and the damages claim was refused.
Austria YearCase or actionTypeRole 2020 Klimaklage constitutional collective action Climate / tax law Applicant In 2020, Greenpeace along with 8,060 co-applicants filed an application at the Constitutional Court challenging the kerosene tax exemption for domestic flights and the VAT exemption for international flights as unconstitutional. The court rejected the application on strictly formal grounds, holding the applicants were not directly affected in their rights and not entitled to challenge the provisions.
Brazil YearCase or actionTypeRole 2020 ADPF against abandonment of the PPCDAm deforestation plan Climate / deforestation Interested party In 2020, an action was filed at the Supreme Federal Tribunal, challenging the federal government's abandonment of the Amazon deforestation control plan. The action was researched, conceived, and compiled by ten organizations including Greenpeace Brasil, but filed by political parties as the organizations lacked standing. 2025 Coalition suit against Petrobras Bloco 59 drilling (Foz do Amazonas) Environmental / oil licensing Plaintiff In 2025, eight organizations, including Greenpeace Brazil, filed an action in the federal courts against Ibama, Petrobras and the Union, seeking annulment of a drilling license issued to them two days prior. The Federal Public Ministry filed its own parallel nullity action in December 2025. In 2026, the 1st Federal Court of Amapa rejected the demand to impose the same studies and consultations on all future Equatorial Margin projects in advance and holding the licence-validity question foreclosed by earlier litigation. It noted each project remains subject to individual review. 2025 ADI 7919 (environmental licensing laws) Constitutional / environmental licensing Interested party In 2025, the PSOL party and the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil filed an action with the Supreme Federal Tribunal seeking the suspension of Law 15.190/2025, the General Environmental Licensing Law, and Law 15.300/2025. The court took the case up for judgment together with two parallel actions and an industry counter-action in August 2026.
Canada YearCase or actionTypeRole 1989 Charitable status revocations and refusals Charity regulation Subject Revenue Canada revoked Greenpeace's charitable status in 1989. In 1994, an audit found gifts to non-qualified donees and a lack of direction and control over funds sent to Greenpeace International. The registration of Greenpeace Canada Charitable Foundation was then revoked for cause in October 1998. Revenue Canada subsequently refused to register the successor Greenpeace Environmental Foundation. 2013 Resolute Forest Products v. Greenpeace Canada Defamation Defendant In 2013, Resolute Forest Products sued Greenpeace Canada and campaigner Shane Moffatt in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for defamation, malicious falsehood and intentional interference with economic relations over a campaign alleging that the company was logging in off-limits areas of the boreal forest. Resolute sought CA$5 million in damages, later reported as CA$7 million. In February 2017, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a lower court decision striking portions of Resolute's amended claim that sought to put Greenpeace's past statements and conduct worldwide at issue. In April 2024, the parties announced that the Ontario action and Resolute's related racketeering suit in the United States had been resolved. 2018 Greenpeace Canada v. Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Judicial review Applicant In September 2018, Greenpeace Canada, represented by Ecojustice, applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for judicial review, alleging that the provincial government had breached the public consultation requirements of Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights when it revoked the regulation underpinning the province's cap-and-trade program and introduced legislation to cancel it. In October 2019, the Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that declaratory relief would have no practical effect once the program had been repealed by statute. Two of the three judges found that the government had acted unlawfully by treating the 2018 provincial election as a substitute for the required consultation.
Finland YearCase or actionTypeRole 2022 First Finnish climate case Climate Applicant In 2022, Greenpeace Nordic and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court over the government's annual climate report. They argued that the state failed its duty under the Climate Change Act to decide on additional measures. In June 2023, the court dismissed the appeal as inadmissible. The case was the first climate case in Finland. 2024 Second Finnish climate case Climate Applicant In August 2024, six organizations including Greenpeace Nordic filed a second appeal, arguing that the government's climate measures violate the Climate Act. In January 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court found the appeal admissible but rejected it on the merits, holding that it could not be established that the measures were insufficient to meet the 2030 and 2035 targets.
France