When the energy grid is at capacity, who gets priority: a private company’s expansion, or public needs? Limited public resources should serve the people, rather than support commercial interests of data centre developers. ARTICLE 19 Europe is joining Leitmotiv in support of TenneT, the Dutch grid operator, currently being sued by private developer Goodman. The case will set a precedent for how scarce shared resources are managed.
What is the case about?
Goodman is a global developer of data centres and other real estate. Since 2021, Goodman has attempted to obtain a grid connection for a 70 MW data centre in Haarlemmermeer (near Amsterdam). For comparison, such a data centrewould have an annual electricity demand roughly comparable to up to 70 percent of the electricity used by Amsterdam’s households.
In early 2026, TenneT informed Goodman that the requested transport capacity is not available due to grid congestion. Other data centre developers in the area have received similar notices. In response, Goodman sued TenneT in summary proceedings before a civil court, asking the court to order TenneT to provide the grid connection. On 29 April 2026, the court of first instance denied the claims by Goodman. The court ruled that TenneT is allowed to put Goodman on a waiting list because of grid congestion. Moreover, the court found that the public interests served by TenneT carried more weight than Goodman’s purely financial interest.
Since Goodman has appealed this ruling, ARTICLE 19 Europe join forces with Leitmotiv, a think-and-do tank working towards an alternative digital economy, to intervene in the case in support of TenneT. A hearing is expected after the summer.
Why does this case matter?
In the request to intervene, Leitmotiv and ARTICLE 19 Europe have emphasised the public interests at stake: the security of electricity supply, preventing climate change, (local) democracy, technological autonomy and importantly, freedom of expression.
Antanina Maslyka of ARTICLE 19 Europe: ‘Freedom of expression is increasingly decided at the infrastructure layer, by those who control the data centres, cables and power they run on. When a single data centre developer can claim scarce grid capacity that a whole region depends on, the question is no longer only about energy. It is about who holds power over the systems our democracy, our access to information and our public debate rely on.’
Christiaan van Veen of Leitmotiv: ‘Electricity demand by data centres is skyrocketing in the Netherlands and is an important cause of grid congestion. We are now on the destructive path of passing the economic costs on to society, while deepening our dependence on fossil fuels and non-European tech corporations. We believe an alternative digital economy is possible that remains within planetary boundaries, where the power of tech corporations is democratically controlled and human rights are respected and promoted.’
The intervention is brought by a team of lawyers from De Roos and PILP.
Sjoerd Lopik, attorney at De Roos: ‘In an era of climate crisis, grid congestion and the fight for digital sovereignty, it is indefensible that a massive data centre is given priority access to the electricity grid over Dutch citizens, businesses, and public institutions. These broader public interests must be central in this case. That is why these NGOs have joined the proceedings.’
Jelle Klaas, human rights lawyer at PILP: ‘If Goodman wins, the interests of data centres will again trump all other interests that play a role. If TenneT wins, local authorities and grid operators keep an important tool to limit the amount of energy that huge data centres want to claim.’