Urgent interest in preliminary relief proceedings over termination of a banking relationship
ING terminates banking relationships after a customer due diligence review — but the route to court is a dead end
A temporary employment agency and its director lose their banking relationship with ING Bank N.V. after a customer due diligence review lasting more than ten months. All claims to restore the relationship and to remove the IVR registration are dismissed both at first instance and on appeal — not because the termination was lawful, but because the required urgent interest is absent.
The temporary employment agency operated in the technical sector and hired in staff through a third company, which it then hired out to clients. ING raised questions about the reason for hiring in the staff, the lack of evidence of bank transfers to the workers, the invoices underlying the transactions, the use of the G-account, and the profit margin, which did not correspond to the volume of transfers to crypto exchanges. The answers given by the appellants' lawyer did not satisfy ING.
On 5 August 2024, ING terminated the banking relationships with all five appellants — the temporary employment agency, its director and three affiliated companies — on the basis of section 35 of the General Banking Conditions (Algemene Bankvoorwaarden), and registered them in the internal referral register (IVR) for a period of seven years. In preliminary relief proceedings, the appellants claimed restoration of the banking relationships and removal from the IVR. The provisional relief judge dismissed the claims; the Amsterdam Court of Appeal upheld that decision on 19 May 2026.
No urgent interest: the appellants bank elsewhere and the IVR is internal
The Court of Appeal holds on two separate grounds that urgent interest is lacking, and each ground independently supports the decision.
As regards the claims to restore the banking relationship, the Court of Appeal finds that the director and the temporary employment agency bank elsewhere, that the payment traffic on the accounts of two of the affiliated companies has almost entirely dried up, and that one company had itself already terminated its account with ING. The appellants did not dispute this. Since they do not depend on ING for their payment traffic and other banking matters, there is no urgent interest in restoring that relationship. Preliminary relief proceedings serve to obtain an interim measure to prevent an irreparable situation; where that situation does not (or no longer) arise, the basis falls away.
As regards the IVR registration, the Court of Appeal considers that the IVR is an internal register that can be consulted solely by (certain employees of) ING and its subsidiaries. The appellants had argued that, under the Data Processing by Collaborative Networks Act (Wgs), information might nonetheless reach other banks or supervisory authorities. The Court of Appeal rejects that argument: the appellants have not put forward any concrete facts showing that this threatens to happen in their case. Moreover — even if information is shared with supervisory authorities or other banks — that does not mean the appellants are hindered in their banking matters. Questions that Rabobank put to the director following publication of the provisional relief judge's judgment had been answered by him. Nor does the prospect that the published judgment might deter trading relationships give rise to an urgent interest that would justify anticipating the outcome of proceedings on the merits.
The costs of the appeal are set at €3,407, consisting of €827 in court registry fees and €2,580 in counsel's fees (rate II, 2 points).
What does this mean for businesses faced with termination of a banking relationship?
This judgment illustrates a fundamental limitation of preliminary relief proceedings as a remedy against termination of a banking relationship: the instrument works only where the situation is genuinely urgent. A party that banks elsewhere — even if forced to and against its wishes — loses the basis for a restoration claim in preliminary relief proceedings. The substantive question whether the termination on the basis of section 35 of the General Banking Conditions was lawful, whether the registration in the IVR meets the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the CDD Decree (customer due diligence), and whether the bank breached its duty of care, can be raised in proceedings on the merits — but that takes time.
For a business faced with termination, the priorities are clear: open alternative banking facilities as quickly as possible and, at the same time, object to the registration on the basis of Article 17 GDPR (right to erasure) and Article 21 GDPR (right to object). For the broader context, see also the discussion of termination of credit by the bank. Only once the factual situation has stabilised does bringing proceedings on the merits in commercial litigation become the sensible course.
Frequently asked questions
On what basis may a bank terminate a banking relationship?
ING terminated the relationship on the basis of section 35 of the General Banking Conditions, which gives the bank a right of termination. The termination must, however, meet the requirements of proportionality and due care arising from the Financial Supervision Act (Wft) and the bank's duty of care. Whether the termination was lawful was not at issue in these preliminary relief proceedings.
What is the IVR, and can other banks view that register?
The IVR (internal referral register) is an internal register of ING, which can be consulted only by employees of ING and its subsidiaries. Other banks cannot view the IVR directly. Exchange with third parties is in principle possible under the Data Processing by Collaborative Networks Act (Wgs), but requires a statutory basis and was not made plausible in this case.
When does an entrepreneur have an urgent interest in restoring the banking relationship?
An urgent interest exists where the entrepreneur genuinely depends on the terminated account for its payment traffic and has no adequate banking facilities elsewhere. A party that opens alternative bank accounts in good time thereby loses the basis for preliminary relief proceedings — even if the termination was substantively incorrect.
Judgment: ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:1365, Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 19 May 2026.
Cited case law
Courts of Appeal: ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:1365