The Hague, 21 May 2025 – In a landmark ruling issued on Wednesday (21), the District Court of The Hague in the Netherlands decided that it is the appropriate jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit against oil company Repsol, accused of causing the biggest environmental disaster in Peru’s recent history, which occurred in January 2022.
In the lawsuit, over 34,000 victims are demanding US$ 1 billion in compensation due to spill of up to 12,000 barrels of oil into the Pacific Ocean during the unloading of a tanker at the La Pampilla refinery, operated by Repsol in Ventanilla, Peru. The disaster contaminated 106 kilometres of coastline, affected 21 beaches and killed thousands of marine animals. Among the claimants, are artisanal fishermen, traders and tourism workers, many of whom lost their source of income abruptly.
The decision, which comes just six weeks after the first hearing on 9 April 2025, paves the way for victims to seek full accountability and confirms that Dutch courts can serve as a forum for justice when powerful multinational corporations attempt to evade liability for serious harm caused abroad.
The case is brought by the Stichting Environment and Fundamental Rights (SEFR), a Dutch non-profit foundation representing the victims, supported by a powerful legal alliance between the Dutch law firm Lemstra Van der Korst (LVDK), acting as SEFR’s counsel, and Pogust Goodhead, which provides strategic and operational assistance in the effort to hold Repsol accountable.
The lawyers are using a strategy based on European Union directives that allow parent companies to be held responsible for the failings of their subsidiaries. Since Repsol Perú B.V. owns 99.2% of the La Pampilla refinery and exercises operational control, the Dutch entity should be held liable in the Netherlands.
Tom Goodhead, CEO and global managing partner of Pogust Goodhead, stated: “The confirmation of jurisdiction reinforces the victims’ position that a parent company cannot shield itself behind corporate structures to evade responsibility. The oil spill occurred under the control of a refinery owned by the Dutch subsidiary, and Repsol was – or should have been – fully aware of what was happening in Peru. Today’s ruling is an important step toward securing justice and fair compensation for the thousands of people affected by this disaster. We are confident that Repsol’s liability will be established in court as the case progresses”.
Repsol’s objections rejected
The court rejected the different objections raised by Repsol, which claimed that, according to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, only the Peruvian courts could judge the case. During the hearing, SEFR argued that this interpretation was incorrect, and the Dutch court agreed, clarifying that the Convention does not apply to refinery operators like Repsol, and does not prevent victims from seeking justice in other jurisdictions.
Repsol also contested the case arguing that SEFR had circumvented Dutch class action rules (WAMCA).
The court again rejected this argument, confirming that SEFR is entitled to proceed on the basis of the
claims attributed to it individually by the victims and thus recognising the victims’ right to choose an
effective route to justice.
At the time, Repsol initially attributed the spill to anomalous waves caused by the eruption of the Hunga Tonga volcano in Tonga. It then blamed the tanker. The Peruvian government declared an environmental emergency, imposed fines – contested by Repsol – and criticised the slow response to the crisis.
The next stage of the case already has a date and will be on 18 June 2025, when the parties have been invited to discuss the definition of a timetable for written submissions and future hearings.
See the media coverage in Pledge Times and ICLG.
