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

B100061/2026

European Parliament resolution 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

(2026/2560(RSP))

– having regard to 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,

– having regard to 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,

– having regard to Article 218(11) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

– having regard to the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the 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 (COM(2025)0357),

– having regard to the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the 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 (COM(2025)0339),

– having regard to the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the 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,

– having regard to the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the 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,

– having regard to Articles 3(5), 4(3), 5(2), 10(3), 13(2) and 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

– having regard to Articles 11, 39, 168, 169, 191, 207, 217 and 218 TFEU,

– having regard to Articles 35, 37 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter),

– having regard to the Council negotiating directives adopted on 17 September 1999 for the conclusion of an Association Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Mercosur, of the other part,

– having regard to the Council conclusions of 8 May 2018,

– having regard to the Commission decision of 3 September 2025 to propose two separate instruments, namely an EU-Mercosur Interim Trade Agreement (ITA) and an EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA), thereby dividing the initial association agreement into distinct legal instruments,

– having regard to the relevant opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in particular Opinion 2/15 of 16 May 2017 on the EU–Singapore Free Trade Agreement, and Opinion 1/17 of 30 April 2019 on the EU–Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement,

– having regard to Rule 117(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas, under Article 218(11) TFEU, Parliament has the right to seek the opinion of the Court of Justice on the compatibility of an envisaged agreement with the Treaties before it is concluded;

B. whereas the EU–Mercosur Association Agreement, negotiated and initialled as a single and comprehensive text, was presented by the Commission and the Council as a mixed agreement, requiring ratification by both the EU and its Member States owing to the inclusion of provisions falling under shared or national competences, including the environment, health and non-direct investment;

C. whereas the Council negotiating directives of 17 September 1999 explicitly mandated the Commission to negotiate a balanced and comprehensive agreement constituting a single undertaking covering the political, cooperation and trade pillars; whereas the Council conclusions of 22 May 2018 reaffirmed that the EU-Mercosur negotiations were conducted on the basis of a single and mixed Association Agreement, in accordance with the 1999 mandate and the distribution of competences established by the Treaties; whereas, reflecting the shared competences of the Union and the Member States, the Council conclusions of 8 May 2018 reaffirmed that it is for the Council to decide whether to open negotiations and, on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether an agreement should be divided into separate instruments, thereby confirming that such a decision does not fall within the autonomous discretion of the Commission;

D. whereas the Commission’s unilateral decision to divide the agreement into two distinct instruments – an Interim Trade Agreement (ITA) purportedly within EU exclusive competence and a Partnership Agreement (EMPA) covering political and cooperation matters – fundamentally alters the legal nature, scope and ratification procedure established under the Council’s initial negotiating directives;

E. whereas, under Article 218(2) TFEU, the power to determine the nature, scope and composition of the envisaged agreement lies with the Council;

F. whereas, under Article 218(5) TFEU, the power to adopt a decision authorising the signing of the agreement and, where appropriate, its provisional application before entry into force lies with the Council;

G. whereas, under Article 218(5) TFEU, the negotiator’s proposal to the Council does not confer on the Commission any discretion to determine or modify the legal architecture of the envisaged agreement before its entry into force;

H. whereas any unilateral alteration by the Commission of the structure or scope of the envisaged agreement, including its division into separate instruments, would thus go beyond the limits of the mandate conferred by the Council under Article 218 TFEU;

I. whereas such a division raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the principles of conferral of competences (Article 5 TEU) and sincere cooperation between the Union and the Member States (Article 4(3) TEU), as well as with the principle of institutional balance recognised by the case-law of the Court of Justice, insofar as it alters the distribution of powers established by the Treaties and the procedural balance established by Article 218 TFEU;

J. whereas under Article 218(10) TFEU, Parliament must be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure, and any circumvention of this obligation undermines the Parliament’s right of consent (Article 218(6) TFEU);

K. whereas, in Opinion 2/15, the Court distinguished between exclusive and shared competences within a single mixed agreement but did not envisage the restructuring or division of such an agreement after negotiation and initialling, or authorise the Commission to take such action;

L. whereas the environmental, social and health dimensions of the agreement fall under shared competences and are subject to democratic scrutiny at national level; whereas the provisional application of the ITA would affect these shared competences without allowing for adequate democratic scrutiny and oversight by national parliaments;

M. whereas several Member States have publicly expressed their opposition to the current ratification of the EU–Mercosur agreement, citing their incompatibility with the EU’s climate and agricultural objectives;

N. whereas excessive liberalisation without adequate safeguard provisions could conflict with the objectives set out in Articles 39 and 207(1) TFEU, which require the common commercial policy to be conducted in accordance with the Union’s internal policies and objectives, including the protection of agricultural producers and rural communities;

O. whereas the envisaged liberalisation of agri-food trade under the EU–Mercosur agreement may expose EU consumers to health and sanitary risks linked to the import of products that may not comply with EU standards on food safety and animal and plant health, and whereas the limited capacity for systematic border controls could undermine the high level of human, environmental and consumer protection required under Articles 35, 37 and 38 of the Charter and Article 168 TFEU;

P. whereas the principle of sincere cooperation requires the Commission to act transparently and in close coordination with the Member States and with Parliament throughout the process of negotiating and concluding international agreements; whereas the Commission should therefore ensure full transparency and institutional balance when applying Article 218 TFEU, in order to safeguard Parliament’s prerogatives and the democratic legitimacy of the EU’s external action;

1. Takes the view that there is legal uncertainty as to whether the proposed agreements are compatible with the Treaties, in particular with Articles 4, 5 and 21 TEU and Articles 7, 11, 39, 191, 207 and 218 TFEU;

2. Decides to seek an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility of the 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 with the Treaties, and on whether;

(a) the decision of the Commission to divide an association agreement negotiated and initialled as a single mixed instrument is consistent with the principles of conferral of competences (Article 5 TEU), institutional balance (as recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice) and sincere cooperation between the Union and the Member States (Article 4(3) TEU);

(b) such a division affects the allocation of competences between the Union and the Member States or alters the procedure of conclusion provided for in Article 218 TFEU;

(c) the envisaged agreements comply with the Union’s environmental objectives under Articles 11 and 191 TFEU and the precautionary principle recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice;

(d) the common commercial policy, as pursued through these agreements, is coherent with the Union’s internal policies and objectives, in accordance with Article 207(1) TFEU and the general duty of consistency set out in Article 7 TFEU;

(e) taken together, the Commission’s actions respect the democratic legitimacy and procedural safeguards required under Article 218(10) and (6) TFEU concerning Parliament’s right to be informed and to give consent;

3. Instructs its President to take the necessary measures to obtain such an opinion from the Court of Justice and to forward this resolution, for information, to the Member States, the Council and the Commission.