Published on 31 March 2023 in Client Alerts
For years, Volterra Fietta’s client worked closely as a contractor to NATO to promote democracy and human rights throughout war-torn Afghanistan. As alleged by Volterra Fietta’s client in the arbitration, after NATO left Afghanistan, NATO chose not to pay significant contract debts that it owes to the client because it had no more use for its services. This is alleged to have left the client unable to reimburse suppliers for NATO’s orders, causing its staff trapped in Afghanistan to be persecuted, suffer torture and be at risk of death.
In other words, as alleged, NATO abandoned the contractor and its staff. In particular, it is alleged that NATO ignored (and in fact often did not even respond to) the client’s pleas for assistance related to the torture and risk of murder of its staff as and after NATO left the country.
The client is seeking payment of all the sums owed to it under the contract, in order to alleviate the plight of its executives and staff remaining in Afghanistan. The client is also seeking a finding from the tribunal that NATO violated its own ethical policies and codes of conduct. At this stage, the client’s claims in the arbitration have not been adjudicated. The client is requesting the chance to prove its allegations to an impartial arbitrator.
Volterra Fietta’s client is maintaining its confidentiality in the proceedings in order to protect the lives of its executives and staff, and their families, still left in Afghanistan.
The arbitration was filed with the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. Due to NATO’s conduct, the client has been left without access to funds. As a result, the client has also asked the International Court of Arbitration to waive or reduce its usual fees for this arbitration, to enable the client to have access to justice.
Partner Gunjan Sharma, who is lead counsel in the arbitration, said: “I was shocked to read emails from NATO trying to dissuade our client from pursuing its contractual rights by telling its loyal service provider, which had already lost so much, that arbitrating its claims would cost it hundreds of thousands of dollars. Volterra Fietta agreed to represent this client without any payment, pro bono, because international law and arbitration should not only protect the well-financed and powerful. There are important principles of access to justice and the rule of law at issue in this dispute. It is to be hoped that the ICC Court of Arbitration will play its part in ensuring access to justice when it comes to the question of administrative fees from this impecunious but meritorious client.”
The client is also represented pro bono by co-counsel, Vos Public International Law B.V., based in Amsterdam. The principal of that law firm, Ms Florentine Vos, a consultant to Volterra Fietta, adds that: “The applicable law is Dutch law. Among other issues, our client’s submission is that NATO acted contrary to the terms of the contract and the fundamental Dutch law principles of reasonableness and fairness. Our client thinks that NATO should treat all of its contractors fairly, whether a small Afghan company or a large military contractor.”
For further information on Volterra Fietta’s public international law and arbitration practice, please contact info@volterrafietta.com.
The second edition of the “Law over borders: Arbitration Guide” has been released by the publishers. The Guide is edited by Volterra Fietta Partners Robert G Volterra, Gunjan Sharma and Ahmed Abdel-Hakam.
Learn moreNearly ten years after its 2015 Model Bilateral Investment Treaty was released, India is now set again to revamp its approach to bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”) – this time, in order better to attract and incentivise inbound foreign investment.
Learn moreIn April 2025, after nearly 10 years of negotiations, the International Maritime Organization (the “IMO”) approved new net-zero regulations for global shipping.
Learn moreBetween April and June 2025, the Parliaments of Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania each voted to approve their country’s exits from the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (the “Ottawa Convention”).
Learn more