Environmental organization granted permission in court for climate case against ING

Milieudefensie can proceed with its climate lawsuit against ING after the Amsterdam District Court ruled that the environmental group is entitled to bring the case. The court rejected all of ING’s arguments against the lawsuit.

ING had argued that Milieudefensie would not correctly represent its supporters because they had “been deceived” by the claims of greenhouse gas emissions that the bank is contributing to. ING’s lawyers stated that Milieudefensie made it seem like the bank was emitting CO2 itself, when actually the emissions are made by ING’s clients.

The court did not see much validity in this argument, stating that Milieudefensie made “completely clear” on its website that the case is concerning emissions caused by activities that ING is financing. In addition, Milieudefensie’s supporters are deemed to be aware that ING is a bank. The court therefore found that the public is unlikely to assume that ING itself directly produces the emissions, according to the ruling.

The Amsterdam court added that Milieudefensie can prove that it is standing up for climate interests and sustainable developments and, with that, is an “adequate voice” for its supporters who find these issues so important. “In addition, Milieudefensie has received almost 30,000 messages of support up to March 2025 for this procedure against ING,” the court added.

Milieudefensie is demanding that ING, the largest bank in the Netherlands, starts working in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement. The suitors state that this means that ING has to halve the emissions that it is indirectly contributing to by 2030 compared to 2019.

These emissions have to be dropped by 99 percent in 2050. The environmental organization is also pushing for the bank to end its working agreement with oil and gas companies that are continuing to drill in new fields. Milieudefensie stated that ING is currently doing the exact opposite of this.

ING considers the demands “unrealistic or unreasonable.” The bank’s lawyers also argued that granting Milieudefensie’s claims would not benefit the climate because it would not lead to an actual reduction in emissions. However, the judges said those arguments should be addressed as part of a substantive assessment of the case.

Milieudefensie said the ruling was not unexpected but described it as “an important first victory” in the case. The proceedings will now continue with written submissions, with hearings likely to take place next spring.