Introduction
In a decision dated 19 October 2026, the Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court of Amsterdam) in case number C/13/794179 / KG ZA 26-837 LV/MV (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:10265) rendered a judgment on a bank’s ability to terminate a corporate banking relationship in summary proceedings, against the backdrop of imminent Dutch AML legislation creating a right to a basic business payment account.
The court (sitting as voorzieningenrechter, i.e., a judge in expedited interim-relief proceedings) prohibited ING from ending Gazprom International Projects B.V.’s bank relationship until Gazprom can obtain an alternative banking relationship, relying largely on the near-term entry into force of a statutory right for businesses to apply for a “basic” euro payment account.
Facts
Gazprom International Projects B.V. (“Gazprom”), based in Aalsmeer, is part of the Russian Gazprom International group. Gazprom held a euro-denominated account with ING Bank N.V. (“ING”), and—according to the judgment—this ING account was the Gazprom International group’s only payment facility in Europe. The relationship was governed by the Algemene Bankvoorwaarden (ABV) (Dutch General Banking Conditions).
On 29 December 2023, ING notified Gazprom that it intended to end the banking relationship relying on Article 35(1) ABV, with a three-month notice period. Gazprom objected, stating that loss of the account would prevent it from meeting (including statutory) payment obligations. The parties continued corresponding, and ING repeatedly granted extensions to allow Gazprom time to find another bank, most recently until 1 October 2026.
A key document was ING’s letter of 30 July 2025, following a meeting of 10 July 2025. In that letter, ING agreed that Gazprom could keep using the account until 31 December 2025, and announced termination as of that date. ING asked Gazprom’s director, [naam 2], to sign the letter for approval; he signed on 8 August 2025.
Before the interim hearing, ING’s counsel confirmed the account would not be closed before judgment in the summary proceedings.
Gazprom initiated kort geding (Dutch summary proceedings used to seek urgent interim relief) seeking continued access to the account. It stated it had approached 15 banks (inside and outside the EU), all of which refused to onboard it. Gazprom argued that, given current geopolitics and its Russian group affiliation, alternatives were not realistically available. It also pointed to its asserted sole activity: the “Sillimanite-project” (gas extraction in the North Sea), expected to end around mid-2028, after which it would no longer need a bank account.
ING argued that the EU’s post-invasion sanctions framework required enhanced assessment of Russian-linked clients; although Gazprom itself was not designated, its group ties and energy-sector context created sanctions, AML, operational burden, and reputational risks. ING also argued that alternatives existed in other jurisdictions (examples cited: Austria, Hungary, Turkey, UAE, Serbia) and that Gazprom’s search efforts were insufficient. ING’s most far-reaching defence was that the parties had already reached agreement to terminate as per 31 December 2025, based on the signed 30 July 2025 letter, and later extensions did not undo that agreement.
At the opening of the hearing, Gazprom requested closed doors due to alleged confidentiality around its banking relationship and sensitive information. The court treated this as a request under Article 27(1)(c) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (protection of confidential business information for legal entities), refused a full closure, and noted that if ING were to quote sensitive details from its internal production, the court could briefly proceed behind closed doors. That did not occur.
Legal considerations
Nature of the proceedings and standard of review
The court emphasised this was an application for an interim measure in summary proceedings. For relief to be granted, Gazprom needed urgency and it had to be sufficiently plausible that a trial court (bodemrechter) would grant similar relief; the decision also required a balancing of interests.
Contractual termination and limits: Article 35 ABV, reasonableness and fairness, and duty of care
The court proceeded on the basis that ING had terminated the relationship under Article 35 ABV, i.e. a contractual termination clause, and not under the Wwft (the Dutch Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Act).
While the judgment does not reproduce Article 35 ABV verbatim, it characterises it as giving the bank a contractual power to end the client relationship. The court stressed that this contractual freedom is not unlimited: under Dutch contract law, exercising a contractual right can be curtailed where it would be unacceptable by standards of reasonableness and fairness (the decision refers to Article 6:248(2) Dutch Civil Code (BW)) and must be assessed against the bank’s special duty of care (zorgplicht) referenced in Article 2 ABV.
The court explicitly framed the duty-of-care analysis in terms of access to the payment system: without a payment account, it is “virtually impossible” to participate in social and commercial life and to operate a business.
Sanctions/AML context and the parties’ factual positions
The court noted that Gazprom was not sanctioned, and that Wwft risks had not been shown on the record. ING had submitted a transaction overview, but the court observed that ING had not alleged suspicious or “shady” transactions appearing there.
The court also rejected ING’s attempt to downplay Gazprom’s interest on the basis that it had limited independent commercial activity. Even if its role was largely intra-group, Gazprom had shown a significant need for a bank account, including to meet obligations to the UK and Dutch tax authorities.
On alternatives, the court held—on a preliminary basis—that Gazprom had made sufficient attempts to find another bank. While more attempts might have been possible, it was not sufficiently plausible that Gazprom would succeed given (i) its membership in the Gazprom group and (ii) current geopolitical circumstances. The court referred to an expert opinion filed by Gazprom (Bennink Dunin-Wasowicz B.V., 24 September 2025) stating that it is particularly difficult for EU banks to onboard businesses from sanctioned countries even if the specific company is not itself designated.
The court also accepted that ING’s interests were significant: given the described sanctions and reputational risks, it was justified for ING to prefer not to bank Russian-linked parties, and plausible that continued monitoring was costly and intensive.
Decisive factor: imminent statutory right to a basic business payment account (Article 4:71k Wwft)
Despite acknowledging heavy interests on both sides, the court did not resolve whether ING’s termination would be unacceptable under Article 6:248(2) BW. Instead, it granted relief for a different reason: the impending legislative change introducing a right to apply for a basic business payment account.
Gazprom relied on:
- the “Convenant verbeteren toegang zakelijke bankrekeningen” (covenant to improve access to business bank accounts), effective 1 January 2026, to which ING is a party and which states: “De aangesloten aanbieders onderschrijven bovendien dat in beginsel iedere bonafide ondernemer in Nederland over een betaalrekening moet kunnen beschikken.”
- and, more importantly, the forthcoming amendment to the Wwft, said to take effect 1 January 2027, introducing Article 4:71k Wwft, quoted by the court as follows:“Een bank die in Nederland betaalrekeningen aan ondernemingen aanbiedt, stelt ondernemingen, verenigingen en stichtingen uit de Europese Unie die in het Nederlandse handelsregister zijn ingeschreven in de gelegenheid een basisbetaalrekening in euro’s aan te vragen en te gebruiken.”
The judge reasoned that if the interim relief were denied and the account closed now, Gazprom could shortly thereafter request such a basic business account from ING and—if refused—bring new litigation seeking an order to open one. The court observed that Article 4:71k Wwft appears to have major implications for banks’ contractual freedom, and that after it enters into force a bank may refuse a basic business account only in special circumstances, for example: AML risks, no interest because the applicant already has an account, or past criminal convictions. On the court’s preliminary view, such circumstances did not appear to apply.
Accordingly, the judge concluded it was not “opportune” to terminate Gazprom’s account at this stage, because it could not be excluded that Gazprom would qualify for a statutory basic business payment account once Article 4:71k Wwft takes effect.
The alleged termination agreement
ING’s argument that Gazprom had agreed to termination by signing the 30 July 2025 letter (signed on 8 August 2025) was also left unresolved. The court held that even if an agreement to terminate existed, the same logic applied: Gazprom could still make a (non-frivolous) request for a basic business account under the forthcoming Article 4:71k Wwft, making termination “not opportune” now.
Urgency, scope of the order, and penalty
The court found Gazprom had a sufficient urgent interest. It clarified that granting the injunction did not relieve Gazprom of continuing efforts to find alternative banking—Gazprom had framed its request in those terms.
No penalty payment (dwangsom) was imposed because ING stated at the hearing it would voluntarily comply with any court order.
Outcome
The court:
- prohibited ING from terminating the banking relationship as long as Gazprom has not been able to enter into an alternative banking relationship; and
- ordered ING to pay Gazprom’s costs of EUR 2,226.57 (plus conditional additional amounts and statutory interest under Article 6:119 BW if unpaid in time).
The decision was declared provisionally enforceable (uitvoerbaar bij voorraad) to the extent granted.
