Skip to content
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION (2026/2560(RSP))

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-10-2026-0061

· Rapporteur: Jordan Bardella, Kinga Gál, Anders Vistisen, Klara Dostalova, Hermann Tertsch, Harald Vilimsky, Paolo Borchia, António Tânger Corrêa, Gerolf Annemans, JeanPaul Garraud, Tamás Deutsch, Ondřej Knotek, Nikola Bartůšek, Antonín Staněk, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Tom Vandendriessche, Anna Bryłka, Vilis Krištopans, Mathilde Androuët, Christophe Bay, MarieLuce BrasierClain, Marie Dauchy, Valérie Deloge, Mélanie Disdier, AnneSophie Frigout, Angéline Furet, Catherine Griset, France Jamet, Virginie Joron, Fabrice Leggeri, Julien Leonardelli, Thierry Mariani, Aleksandar Nikolic, Philippe Olivier, Gilles Pennelle, Pascale Piera, Pierre Pimpie, Julie Rechagneux, André Rougé, Julien Sanchez, PierreRomain Thionnet, Rody Tolassy, Matthieu Valet, Alexandre Varaut, Séverine Werbrouck, Csaba Dömötör, Viktória Ferenc, Enikő Győri, András Gyürk, György Hölvényi, András László, Ernő SchallerBaross, Pál Szekeres, Annamária Vicsek, Jaroslav Bžoch, Jaroslav Knot, Tomáš Kubín, Jana Nagyová, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Susanna Ceccardi, Anna Maria Cisint, Aldo Patriciello, Silvia Sardone, Isabella Tovaglieri, Roberto Vannacci, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Jorge Martín Frías, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Rachel Blom, Ton Diepeveen, Marieke Ehlers, Auke Zijlstra, Roman Haider, Georg Mayer, Barbara Bonte, Tomasz Buczek, Tiago Moreira de Sá, Afroditi Latinopoulou, Mieke Andriese, Sebastian Kruis, Elisabeth Dieringer, Gerald Hauser, Petra Steger, Adam Bielan, Tobiasz Bocheński, Waldemar Buda, Michał Dworczyk, Małgorzata Gosiewska, Patryk Jaki, Mariusz Kamiński, Marlena Maląg, Arkadiusz Mularczyk, Piotr Müller, Daniel Obajtek, Jacek Ozdoba, Bogdan Rzońca, Beata Szydło, Dominik Tarczyński, Maciej Wąsik, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Anna Zalewska, Kosma Złotowski

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 4 Sept 2026

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, questioning the Commission's division of the original single agreement. The request covers whether the division respects principles of conferral, institutional balance, sincere cooperation, environmental objectives, policy coherence, and Parliament's rights.

Key points

  1. Parliament decides to seek the Court of Justice's opinion on the compatibility of the proposed agreements with the Treaties.
  2. Asks whether the Commission's division of the agreement into two instruments is consistent with conferral, institutional balance, and sincere cooperation.
  3. Asks whether the division affects the allocation of competences or alters the conclusion procedure under Article 218 TFEU.
  4. Asks whether the agreements comply with EU environmental objectives and the precautionary principle.
  5. Asks whether the common commercial policy is coherent with internal policies and objectives, per Article 207(1) TFEU and consistency duty.
  6. Asks whether the Commission's actions respect Parliament's right to be informed and give consent under Article 218(10) and (6) TFEU.

Who is affected

  • The European Commission, whose decision to divide the agreement is questioned.
  • The Council and Member States, whose competences and ratification procedures may be affected.
  • The European Parliament, whose rights to information and consent are at stake.

Legal basis: Article 218(11) TFEU