Part of: Coffeeshops and banking
Supreme Court 5 November 2021: the social function of banks
In the so-called sauna club judgment (Supreme Court 5 November 2021, ECLI:NL:HR:2021:1652) the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that banks, given their social position, may also have an obligation toward non-consumers to offer a payment account. The court of appeal had given significant weight to the finding that without a payment account it is "virtually impossible to participate in social and economic life and to operate a business." The Supreme Court did not find that reasoning incomprehensible or insufficiently motivated.
But: a legitimate interest can override it
At the same time the Supreme Court acknowledges that banks may have a legitimate interest in refusing clients on the basis of supervisory requirements or integrity risks. That interest can outweigh the duty to provide a payment account — or, as in the sauna club case, just the duty to facilitate cash deposits. Every individual case is a balancing exercise.
Implications for coffeeshops
For the coffeeshop sector this judgment means that categorical refusal is legally hard to sustain. The bank must concretely substantiate why the individual coffeeshop poses a risk that makes banking services — or a specific component such as cash deposits — untenable.