OLG Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf), decision of January 17, 2026 – case no. 37 W 2/26, addressed the termination of a current account by a public-law savings bank due to an increased risk of money laundering. In preliminary relief proceedings, the applicant was unable to secure either the temporary continuation of the account or to substantiate the requisite particular urgency.
Dispute over the temporary continuation of the current account
The respondent, a savings bank, had terminated the applicant’s current account. The applicant subsequently applied for a preliminary injunction requiring the account to be maintained temporarily. In this way, it sought to continue processing its payments through the existing bank account.
Landgericht Düsseldorf (Regional Court Düsseldorf) dismissed the application. The applicant’s immediate appeal against that decision was likewise unsuccessful before OLG Düsseldorf.
Strict requirements for a mandatory injunction
Temporary continuation of the account partially anticipates the decision on the merits
The court classified the requested temporary continuation of the banking relationship as a mandatory injunction. Such a preliminary injunction is not limited to preserving the status quo but already grants the applicant the relief sought. As a general rule, it must therefore not replace the outcome of the main proceedings.
For such an injunction to be issued, particular grounds for urgency are required. The applicant must establish to the requisite standard of proof that awaiting a decision in the main proceedings would result in specific hardship or substantial, unacceptable disadvantages.
No sufficiently substantiated hardship
According to OLG Düsseldorf, the applicant had failed to sufficiently substantiate the requisite urgency. In particular, it had not adequately demonstrated the following circumstances:
- The applicant had not established that the termination of the account posed an existential threat to its business.
- It had not sufficiently demonstrated that no reasonable alternative bank account was available to it.
- It had not shown that attempts to open an account with a bank established in the European Union outside Germany had been unsuccessful.
In addition, the applicant still held an account with another bank. That account was expected to remain in place until the end of June 2026 and could continue to be used for payment transactions. The court therefore considered it reasonable for the applicant to await the outcome of the main proceedings for the time being.
Termination by a public-law savings bank
Objective grounds required for termination
OLG Düsseldorf also addressed whether the termination was permissible in principle. The respondent was a public-law credit institution. Such a savings bank may not terminate a business relationship without objective grounds.
However, this does not give rise to a general obligation to contract. Nor is a customer generally entitled to have a current account agreement continued after it has been terminated. Rather, the decisive issue is whether the savings bank can base its termination on comprehensible objective grounds.
Enhanced due diligence obligations due to the connection with Iran
The savings bank had based its decision on enhanced requirements under anti-money laundering law. Due to the Iranian interest in the applicant, there could be an increased risk within the meaning of § 15 Abs. 3 Nr. 2 Geldwäschegesetz (GwG, German Anti-Money Laundering Act).
Under the European anti-money laundering framework, Iran is considered a high-risk country. Credit institutions may therefore be subject to enhanced review and due diligence obligations in relation to business relationships with a corresponding connection. These requirements may entail additional checks and an increased administrative burden for the bank.
In the court’s view, the savings bank could not be prevented from terminating the business relationship in order to avoid the resulting increased risks and additional review burden. The requirements under anti-money laundering law could therefore, in principle, constitute objective grounds for termination.
Significance of the decision for account holders and banks
The decision makes clear that the continuation of a terminated current account can be enforced in preliminary relief proceedings only under narrowly defined conditions. The mere fact that an existing banking relationship has been terminated is insufficient for a mandatory injunction. Instead, specific and substantiated circumstances demonstrating acute hardship or an existential threat are required.
At the same time, the decision concerns the tension between a customer’s interest in maintaining its banking relationship and the credit institution’s obligations under anti-money laundering law. Although a public-law savings bank requires objective grounds for termination, enhanced review and due diligence obligations may constitute such grounds if the bank wishes to avoid the associated risks and additional compliance burden.
For judicial review in preliminary relief proceedings, two issues must therefore be distinguished in particular: First, it must be determined whether the termination can be based on objective grounds. Second, the applicant must independently establish why, due to specific hardship or substantial disadvantages, it cannot reasonably be expected to await the outcome of the main proceedings.
Legal advice on disputes concerning bank accounts
The termination of a business or personal account may raise questions under both contract law and anti-money laundering law. MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises and represents companies, investors and high-net-worth individuals in corresponding disputes with credit institutions. Further information is available under legal advice on banking law.
