THE AUTHOR:
Rida Ahmed, US Marketing Manager at Jus Mundi
International arbitration practitioners now have a powerful new research tool at their fingertips. BakerHostetler has launched the Intra-EU Objection Compendium, a publicly accessible tracker that centralizes every known arbitral tribunal and domestic court decision addressing “intra-EU” objection – a jurisdictional challenge that has reshaped the landscape of investor-state disputes involving EU Member States.
The resource, powered by Jus Mundi data, addresses a critical gap in the field: no single database has comprehensively tracked how arbitral tribunals and national courts worldwide are analyzing this evolving objection.
The Challenge
Since the Court of Justice of the European Union’s controversial Achmea (2018) and Komstroy (2021) decisions, EU Member States have consistently raised the “intra-EU” objection when facing investment arbitrations brought by investors from another EU Member State or enforcement actions in domestic courts. If sustained, the objection deprives an arbitral tribunal of jurisdiction over treaty-based arbitrations between EU investors and EU respondent-States, based on the alleged exclusive jurisdiction of EU courts to interpret matters of EU law.
“Most practitioners and courts assume the objection has taken only one form when, in reality, the issue is being re-raised in different ways before arbitral tribunals and courts,” the BakerHostetler team explains. “For example, the EU parties continue to try and re-interpret the Energy Charter Treaty through various declarations and agreements amongst themselves. With our tracker, users will be able to see how arbitral tribunals and national courts have addressed these changing arguments.”
What The Data Reveals
BakerHostetler’s research has identified striking patterns across jurisdictions and forums. As of the tracker’s launch:
Arbitral Tribunals: 69 ICSID tribunals have addressed the objection, along with 16 SCC tribunals, 15 PCA/UNCITRAL tribunals, and 1 ICC tribunal. To date, 98 tribunals have rejected the objection, while only 3 have sustained it
National Courts: The objection has emerged in 12 jurisdictions: the United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Lithuania, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Israel, and Singapore. Courts have sustained the objection in 26 cases and rejected it in 20 cases.
“Courts in EU jurisdictions have predictably been more receptive to these objections than those in non-EU jurisdictions,” the BakerHostetler team notes. “The overwhelming majority of arbitral tribunals has consistently rejected these objections.”
Why This Resource Matters
“We have frequently addressed the ‘intra-EU’ objection in our arbitrations, court filings, and writings, but there was no single source that aggregated all of the decisions addressing the objection,” the BakerHostetler team shares. “Given the importance of the issue and the growing number of cases where it has been raised, we thought it a service to the profession to put together a global tracker of the international arbitration and national court’s decisions addressing the objections.”
The team sought to cover each arbitral institution and national court jurisdiction comprehensively, creating what they describe as “a critical rule-of-law issue that has played a central role in numerous arbitrations and enforcement actions, but there was not a single database that provided an updated, comprehensive resource to keep track of decisions analyzing intra-EU objections.”
Powered by Jus Mundi
BakerHostetler chose Jus Mundi as the data provider for the project, describing it as “a leading database for international arbitral and litigation practice and one of the most reliable sources for information related to international arbitration.”
The structured data and advanced search capabilities proved essential to building the compendium. “We were able to filter cases by various forums and utilize targeted search terms to efficiently identify awards and other decisions that analyzed this objection and related issues,” the team explains.
This partnership reflects Jus Mundi’s core mission: democratizing access to international arbitration information. By making comprehensive case data freely accessible and linkable, initiatives like BakerHostetler’s tracker advance transparency and knowledge-sharing across the arbitration community, enabling practitioners, academics, and adjudicators to build on a shared foundation of publicly available decisions.
What Practitioners Can Expect
The Intra-EU Objection Compendium offers practitioners, adjudicators, scholars, students, and other stakeholders an accurate, reliable source for all intra-EU objection decisions spanning the globe. Users can quickly identify and analyze the most pertinent, contemporaneous cases to support research, case strategy, enforcement analysis, and broader policy work.
“We sincerely hope it will be used for all of the above to further develop the jurisprudence on this subject and advance the rule of law,” the BakerHostetler team says. “We will work to keep the Tracker updated, and we, of course, welcome any feedback from end-users on how we might improve this resource or ideas for additional details that may further assist its readers.”
The team also encourages users to contribute to the resource: “Inasmuch as not all awards and judicial decisions are necessarily public, we would encourage users to let us know about decisions that would not otherwise be available.”
About Jus Mundi
Founded in 2019 and recognized as a mission-led company, Jus Mundi is a pioneer in the legal technology industry dedicated to powering global justice through artificial intelligence. Headquartered in Paris, with additional offices in New York, London, and Singapore. Jus Mundi serves over 150,000 users from law firms, multinational corporations, governmental bodies, and academic institutions in more than 90 countries. Through its proprietary AI technology, Jus Mundi provides global legal intelligence, data-driven arbitration professional selection, and business development services.
Press Contact Helene Maïo, Senior Digital Marketing Manager, Jus Mundi – [email protected]
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
![[Template to duplicate] Article with Subtitle #5](https://dailyjus.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/article-collab-JM-Katy-Patrick-1-120x86.jpg)
