ACP-SXM vs. GEBE: What could really happen if this fight goes via the court
GREAT BAY--Yes, a court can instruct GEBE to do certain things, but the court would not likely take over the company’s management or simply order broad relief without testing the legal basis, urgency, evidence and financial consequences. Based on St. Maarten’s civil-law framework, ACP-SXM’s strongest route would likely be a collective action combined with urgent civil proceedings, especially if it seeks temporary protection while the legality of the fuel clause and disconnections is reviewed. Can ACP-SXM bring a class action? Likely yes, but it would first have to clear a standing hurdle.
St. Maarten recognizes collective interest actions through Article 3:305a of the Civil Code of St. Maarten. Recent St. Maarten case law confirms that a foundation/association can try to sue as a collective-interest organization under article 3:305a BW SM, but it must actually qualify as a proper representative of the affected group. In one 2026 St. Maarten case, a foundation was declared inadmissible because it did not qualify as a proper representative under that article.
So ACP-SXM would first have to show things such as:
ACP-SXM is properly established, its statutes allow it to protect consumer interests, the consumer interests are sufficiently similar, it adequately represents those consumers, and the case is not just a political dispute dressed up as a lawsuit.
GEBE could immediately argue that ACP-SXM has no standing, or that the demands are too broad because not all customers are in the same position. A customer with a disputed bill is not the same as a customer who simply did not pay. A customer disconnected after years of non-payment is not the same as a customer disconnected while actively contesting a bill.
What could ACP-SXM ask the court to do?
ACP-SXM could likely ask for several forms of relief, but not all would have the same chance. The stronger requests would be targeted and temporary, for example:
A temporary halt on disconnections for customers with active billing disputes, an order requiring GEBE to publish or disclose the fuel clause calculation, an order requiring GEBE to create a transparent review process for disputed bills, an order barring disconnections where GEBE cannot show proper notice, proper calculation or proper handling of complaints, and possibly an order requiring reconnection in specific categories of cases.
The weaker request would be a blanket order saying: reverse the fuel clause for everyone, stop all residential disconnections, and reconnect every household regardless of payment history or dispute status.
A court may be reluctant to grant that kind of sweeping order unless ACP-SXM can show that GEBE acted unlawfully across the board and that the harm to consumers outweighs the operational harm to the company.
Could the court order GEBE to stop disconnections?
Yes, but most likely not as a blanket rule forever.
In urgent civil proceedings, a court can issue an injunction or order a party to do or stop doing something. The Dutch Caribbean legal system uses summary proceedings, commonly called kort geding, for urgent temporary relief. These proceedings are meant for fast intervention where waiting for a full trial would cause harm. General Dutch civil-law sources describe this as a procedure for urgent provisional relief, including injunctions.
Applied to GEBE, a judge could plausibly say:
• GEBE may not disconnect customers whose bills are under active dispute until the dispute is reviewed.
• GEBE must give proper notice before disconnection.
• GEBE must reconnect a household if the disconnection occurred while GEBE had not properly addressed a legitimate billing complaint.
• GEBE must create or follow a temporary review process before disconnecting vulnerable households.
But the judge would also consider GEBE’s argument that disconnections are part of collections and that the company needs revenue to operate. If GEBE shows that a full suspension would seriously damage cash flow, supplier payments or service continuity, the court may avoid a broad shutdown of collections.
Could the court order GEBE to reverse the fuel clause?
Possibly, but this would be harder.
A court could intervene if ACP-SXM shows that the fuel clause was applied without proper legal authority, contrary to the concession framework, contrary to tariff rules, retroactively without lawful basis, or in a way that violates basic principles of reasonableness, transparency or consumer protection.
The complication is that electricity tariffs and the fuel clause sit inside a regulatory framework. Government has said electricity tariffs are governed by the Electricity Concession Ordinance, and that tariff decisions require verified cost-based information from GEBE. Government also designated BTP as the independent supervisor with authority to demand information, inspect, audit operational and financial data, review tariff calculations and verify the fuel clause methodology.
A civil court may say: the proper first step is verification by the regulator, not a court inventing a tariff from the bench.
So the court might be more likely to order disclosure, verification, suspension of disputed enforcement, or repayment if unlawfulness is proven, rather than immediately setting or reversing the tariff itself.
What would GEBE likely argue?
GEBE would probably argue four things.
• First, ACP-SXM does not represent every consumer, or the consumers are not all similarly situated.
• Second, the fuel clause is tied to real fuel and production costs, so reversing it would create a shortfall.
• Third, a blanket disconnection ban would encourage non-payment and threaten the company’s ability to operate.
• Fourth, tariff oversight belongs partly with Government and BTP, not solely with the civil court.
That last argument is important. Government has publicly said BTP now has the legal power to verify GEBE’s numbers, test assumptions and hold the company accountable under the Electricity Concession Ordinance. A judge may not want to bypass that process unless there is clear illegality or immediate harm.
What would ACP-SXM’s strongest argument be?
ACP-SXM’s strongest argument would not be simply “people are angry” or “bills are high.” That is politically powerful, but legally incomplete.
The stronger legal argument would be:
GEBE is enforcing bills and disconnections while there are unresolved questions about billing accuracy, retroactive fuel clause application, calculation methodology and consumer dispute handling.
That shifts the case from “customers do not want to pay” to “customers should not be disconnected or forced to pay disputed amounts until the legality and accuracy of those amounts are verified.”
That is a much stronger court argument.
How could this realistically play out?
Most realistically, the court would not give ACP-SXM everything it asks for. A judge may look for a practical middle ground.
A possible outcome could be:
• The court refuses to order a full reversal of the fuel clause immediately, but orders GEBE to provide documents, calculations or explanations within a fixed deadline.
• The court refuses to ban all disconnections, but orders GEBE to suspend disconnections for customers with active disputes, vulnerable households or customers who entered into realistic payment arrangements.
• The court orders GEBE to follow a clearer complaint and review process before disconnection.
• The court may order reconnection in specific cases where disconnection was premature, improperly noticed or tied to a disputed bill.
• The court may leave the broader tariff question to BTP, Government and a full merits case.
Bottom line
The court can instruct GEBE to act, stop acting, disclose information, follow a fair process, suspend certain disconnections, reconnect specific customers, or comply with legal obligations. The court can also attach penalties in some cases if an order is ignored.
But a court is less likely to simply order GEBE to reverse the fuel clause and reconnect everyone without conditions. The more likely result would be targeted relief: protect disputed and vulnerable customers, force transparency, and require a legally sound process while the fuel clause and tariff issues are reviewed.