In the recent insurer claim against Romania, the tribunal did not view the jurisdictional objection as manifestly without merit. Rather than disposing of the case at the outset under Article 41, it opted to proceed with a structured phase to address the objection in detail.

 

This distinction matters.

 

It does not predetermine jurisdiction — but it underscores a key point for both investors and states: post-Achmea, jurisdictional challenges are being examined through process and evidence, not presumed by default.

 

At the same time, Eurohold and Euroins are moving forward with a second investment-law-based arbitration, expected to include additional investors — a development that further illustrates that investment protection mechanisms within Europe continue to operate in practice.

 

The conversation is no longer about whether intra-EU arbitration exists.

It is about how it is evolving — one case, and one procedural step, at a time.