Seeking an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the proposed Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Common Market of the South, the Argentine Republic, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, of the other part, and the proposed Interim Agreement on Trade between the European Union, of the one part, and the Common Market of the South, the Argentine Republic, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, of the other part
B-10-2026-0060
· Rapporteur: Krzysztof Hetman, Pascal Canfin, Raphaël Glucksmann, Majdouline Sbai, Manon Aubry, Marta Wcisło, Benoit Cassart, Maria Noichl, Saskia Bricmont, Lynn Boylan, Céline Imart, Yvan Verougstraete, François Kalfon, Vicent Marzà Ibáñez, Danilo Della Valle, Hanna GronkiewiczWaltz, Hristo Petrov, JeanMarc Germain, Thomas Waitz, Anja Hazekamp, FrançoisXavier Bellamy, Ciaran Mullooly, Chloé Ridel, Ana Miranda Paz, Luke Ming Flanagan, Ewa Kopacz, Eric Sargiacomo, Cristina Guarda, Rudi Kennes, Christophe Gomart, Michael McNamara, Estelle Ceulemans, David Cormand, Kathleen Funchion, Kamila GasiukPihowicz, Grégory Allione, Marko Vešligaj, Marie Toussaint, Martin Schirdewan, Jacek Protas, Valérie Devaux, Elio Di Rupo, Diana Riba i Giner, Marina Mesure, Andrzej Buła, Michał Kobosko, Aurore Lalucq, Tilly Metz, Leila Chaibi, Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz, Laurence Farreng, Claire Fita, Lena Schilling, Sebastian Everding, Adam Jarubas, Christine Singer, Nora Mebarek, Jaume Asens Llodrà, Arash Saeidi, Li Andersson, Rasmus Andresen, Giuseppe Antoci, Pascal Arimont, Bartosz Arłukowicz, Konstantinos Arvanitis, Pernando Barrena Arza, Michael Bloss, Gordan Bosanac, Marc Botenga, Gilles Boyer, Borys Budka, Mélissa Camara, Damien Carême, Laurent Castillo, Anna Cavazzini, Per Clausen, Christophe Clergeau, Jérémy Decerle, Özlem Demirel, Bas Eickhout, Nikolas Farantouris, Emma Fourreau, Daniel Freund, Mario Furore, Estrella Galán, Hanna Gedin, Giorgos Georgiou, Charles Goerens, Markéta Gregorová, Martin Günther, Rima Hassan, MirceaGheorghe Hava, Pär Holmgren, Dariusz Joński, Pierre Jouvet, Fabienne Keller, Elena Kountoura, Alice Kuhnke, Merja Kyllönen, Sergey Lagodinsky, Katrin Langensiepen, Murielle Laurent, Isabelle Le Callennec, Nathalie Loiseau, Isabella Lövin, Mimmo Lucano, Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Jagna MarczułajtisWalczak, Ignazio Roberto Marino, Erik Marquardt, Catarina Martins, Sara Matthieu, Irene Montero, Carolina Morace, Nadine Morano, Ville Niinistö, Maria Ohisalo, João Oliveira, Younous Omarjee, Leoluca Orlando, Valentina Palmisano, Nikos Pappas, Gaetano Pedulla’, Thomas PellerinCarlin, Emma Rafowicz, Terry Reintke, Manuela Ripa, Ilaria Salis, Jussi Saramo, Mounir Satouri, Benedetta Scuderi, Isabel Serra Sánchez, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Jonas Sjöstedt, Anthony Smith, Nicolae Ștefănuță, Joachim Streit, Tineke Strik, Michał Szczerba, Dario Tamburrano, Pasquale Tridico, Catarina Vieira, Michał Wawrykiewicz, Stéphanie YonCourtin
- Voted on · Adopted 334–324–11 · See the decision →
- Full procedure 2026/2560
Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.
Parliament seeks an opinion from the Court of Justice on whether the proposed EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and Interim Trade Agreement are compatible with the Treaties, given concerns about their split and the rebalancing mechanism.¶ It is concerned the split may breach EU law and that the rebalancing clause could undermine EU sustainability and precautionary measures.¶¶¶
Key points
- Parliament is concerned that splitting the EU-Mercosur agreement into the EMPA and ITA may be incompatible with Article 218(2) and (4) TFEU and principles of conferral, institutional balance, and sincere cooperation.¶
- It fears the split may not respect Council negotiating directives and could affect voting rules and national parliaments' role.
- Parliament is concerned the rebalancing mechanism may be incompatible with Articles 11, 168, 169, 191 TFEU and Charter Articles 35, 37, 38, threatening EU legal autonomy.¶
- It is concerned the agreements may compromise the precautionary principle, especially through arbitration panels assessing its application.¶
- Parliament decides to seek a Court of Justice opinion on the compatibility of the proposed agreements and the procedure for their conclusion.¶
Who is affected
- The EU institutions and Member States, as the agreements' conclusion and ratification procedures are questioned.¶
- National parliaments, whose ratification rights may be circumvented by the split.¶
- EU and Mercosur parties, as the rebalancing mechanism could affect their trade and regulatory measures.¶¶
Legal basis: Article 218(11) TFEU, and Articles 3(5), 4(3), 10(3), 13(2), 21 TEU; Articles 11, 168, 169, 171, 191 TFEU; Charter Articles 35, 37, 38¶¶¶