Milieudefensie v. ING Group and ING Bank

On March 28, 2025, Milieudefensie served a formal summons to ING Bank, initiating a civil lawsuit before the Amsterdam District Court. The case follows a notice of liability issued on January 19, 2024, and a final demand letter on January 16, 2025. ING responded to both letters but did not meet the group’s demands. With over 30,000 co-claimants and 100,000 members, Milieudefensie claims standing under Dutch law to pursue collective environmental and human rights claims. ING, headquartered in Amsterdam and classified as a systemically important bank, is accused of facilitating dangerous climate change through continued financing of greenhouse gas-intensive industries without adequate climate safeguards. In 2024 alone, ING reported emissions of 261.6 Mt CO₂e, which Milieudefensie notes is approximately 1.75 times the emissions of all Dutch citizens and companies. Milieudefensie alleges that ING’s climate conduct violates the societal duty of care under Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code. Drawing from precedent (Urgenda v Netherlands, Milieudefensie v. Shell), international climate science (IPCC, IEA), and soft law instruments (UNGPs, OECD Guidelines), the claimant argues that ING’s failure to adopt effective emissions reduction policies constitutes a tortious act. The summons outlines that ING’s role as a financial enabler of fossil fuel expansion and other high-emission sectors results in both direct and facilitated emissions (scope 3), which ING fails to adequately report or reduce. The case relies heavily on the endangerment doctrine, highlighting ING’s long-term knowledge of climate risks, its capacity to act, and the severe, foreseeable harm resulting from inaction. Milieudefensie asks the court to compel ING to take the following actions: 1. Halve its total emissions by 2030, and continue reducing thereafter, in line with the IPCC’s 1.5°C pathway. 2. Reduce emissions in eight major sectors it finances (e.g., steel, aviation) in line with the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario. 3. Cease all financing and investment in companies starting new oil and gas projects. 4. Require all large corporate clients to submit credible, science-based climate plans. These demands are grounded in Milieudefensie’s argument that absolute emissions reductions (not merely intensity reductions) are essential to fulfilling ING’s legal and human rights obligations. The summons provides a comprehensive scientific basis, citing the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report and carbon budget data, which indicate that global CO₂ emissions must fall by at least 48% by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050 to preserve a 50% chance of staying within 1.5°C warming. Milieudefensie also invokes human rights law, emphasizing ING’s responsibility to protect rights to life, health, and a clean and sustainable environment under the ECHR and other international norms. The summons references the KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland judgment, reinforcing that actors cannot evade climate responsibility by pointing to others. Milieudefensie claims that ING’s “Terra approach” and other existing policies are inadequate because: • They rely primarily on intensity targets instead of absolute reductions; • They exclude 70% of ING’s financed emissions and all facilitated emissions; • ING continues to support fossil fuel companies, including those expanding oil and gas production; • ING lacks lacks absolute sector-specific targets; • Executive remuneration is not linked to emissions reductions; • ING’s engagement policy prioritizes financial risk over climate harm. According to the Banking on Climate Chaos report, ING ranks among the top 30 fossil fuel financiers globally, having facilitated over €106 billion in fossil fuel investments since the Paris Agreement. Anticipating ING’s likely “effectiveness” defence, Milieudefensie argues that requiring ING to act would have a direct and indirect impact on global emissions. Citing legal precedents (Urgenda, Shell, KlimaSeniorinnen, Brussels Court of Appeal, Montana case), it affirms that partial responsibility is sufficient for tortious liability and that holding ING accountable can have a systemic, flywheel effect on the market and policy landscape.