- The European Parliament has voted to refer the draft EU–Mercosur trade agreement to the EU Court of Justice, effectively freezing the ratification process.
- Judges will assess whether the pact complies with EU law, including questions on environmental protection, agricultural competition and human rights safeguards.
- Lawmakers have requested clarification of the division of competences between the EU and member states in implementing and enforcing the agreement.
- The Court will examine enforcement mechanisms, including how sustainable development and other obligations would be monitored and upheld.
- The Court’s opinion will determine whether, and under what conditions, the EU–Mercosur agreement can proceed towards ratification.
Brussels (Washington Insider Magazines) - The European Parliament has voted to refer the draft EU–Mercosur trade agreement to the EU Court of Justice, freezing the ratification process while judges assess whether the pact complies with EU law. The decision follows years of political debate over environmental protections, agricultural competition and human rights safeguards in the proposed deal. Lawmakers also called for clarification of the division of competences between the EU and member states and for a detailed review of enforcement mechanisms. The Court’s opinion is expected to determine whether, and under what conditions, the agreement can move forward.
Parliament vote halts Mercosur deal pending court review
Credit: BERTRAND GUAY / AFP
The European Parliament adopted a resolution requesting an opinion from the EU Court of Justice on the compatibility of the EU–Mercosur agreement with the EU Treaties, effectively suspending any further ratification steps until the Court rules. The text was approved by a majority of members of the European Parliament (MEPs), with political groups largely divided along longstanding lines over trade, climate and agricultural policy. The referral means that the agreement cannot be submitted for final consent by Parliament or for formal conclusion by the Council until the Court has delivered its opinion.
MEPs argued that the complexity and breadth of the EU–Mercosur text justified a prior-approval check by the Court, citing concerns over sustainable development provisions, dispute settlement procedures and the allocation of powers between EU institutions and member states. Several members stressed that seeking judicial clarification now could avoid legal uncertainty or later challenges before national or EU courts once the agreement entered into force.
Legal questions focus on competences and sustainability clauses
In their request, MEPs asked the Court of Justice to clarify whether the EU–Mercosur agreement should be treated as an “EU-only” agreement or as a “mixed” agreement requiring ratification by national parliaments in all member states. This question has been a central point of contention since earlier Court opinions on trade and investment agreements, including the EU–Singapore accord, which drew detailed distinctions between EU and member-state competences. Lawmakers underlined that legal certainty on this issue is necessary before any political decision on ratification is taken.
The resolution also asks the Court to assess whether the sustainable development chapter and related enforcement tools are sufficient to meet obligations under the EU Treaties, including the requirement to promote high environmental and labour standards in external action. MEPs referred in particular to binding commitments on deforestation, climate action and respect for multilateral environmental agreements, as well as to the effectiveness of state-to-state dispute settlement and consultation mechanisms with civil society. The Court has been requested to examine how these obligations interact with the EU’s own Green Deal and climate legislation.
Environmental and climate concerns remain central to debate
Longstanding environmental and climate concerns played a prominent role in the parliamentary decision to request a judicial opinion. MEPs cited evidence of deforestation and forest degradation in parts of the Amazon and other sensitive ecosystems, as well as reports on greenhouse gas emissions linked to agricultural expansion, as factors that have shaped public and political attitudes towards the Mercosur deal. Several national governments within the EU have previously indicated that they could not support ratification without stronger environmental safeguards.
Civil society organisations and farming groups have for years warned that expanded market access for agricultural products from Mercosur countries could increase pressure on forests and biodiversity unless stringent monitoring and enforcement are put in place. In plenary and committee debates, MEPs referred to these concerns and to earlier Commission initiatives to negotiate additional “side letters” or interpretative declarations on sustainability. The decision to seek the Court’s view reflects a desire among many lawmakers to ensure that environmental obligations in the agreement are fully consistent with EU legal standards.
Agricultural sector pressures shape political positions
Credit: noe.org
The agricultural dimension of the EU–Mercosur agreement has also significantly influenced the positions of many MEPs and member states. Farmer organisations in several EU countries have argued that tariff concessions for beef, poultry, sugar and other sensitive products from Mercosur partners could intensify competition for European producers, especially in regions where small and medium-sized farms predominate. These groups have raised questions about production standards, use of pesticides and traceability systems, and have called for equivalent conditions for imports and domestic production.
During parliamentary discussions, some MEPs underlined that the agreement includes tariff-rate quotas, sanitary and phytosanitary provisions and safeguard mechanisms intended to protect EU farmers from sudden market disruption. Others maintained that these elements may not be sufficient in practice and pressed for stronger guarantees or complementary support measures at EU level. The referral to the Court does not directly address price or market issues, but it allows additional time for these political concerns to remain on the agenda while legal questions are examined.
Commission defends legal robustness and strategic value of pact
The European Commission has consistently presented the EU–Mercosur agreement as both legally robust and strategically important for the Union’s trade and foreign policy. Commission representatives have argued in parliamentary hearings and public statements that the text respects EU legal obligations, including those on environmental protection, labour rights and public policy regulation. They emphasise that the agreement would open one of the world’s largest markets to EU exporters while reinforcing political ties with Mercosur partners.
In response to growing concerns over deforestation and climate impacts, the Commission has previously engaged with Mercosur governments to develop additional instruments, such as joint declarations or roadmaps, to clarify commitments and monitoring arrangements. Officials maintain that engagement through a trade agreement can provide leverage to promote higher standards and closer cooperation on sustainability issues. The Commission has indicated that it will cooperate fully with the Court of Justice process and continue dialogue with both Parliament and member states during the legal review.
Positions of member states and internal EU dynamics
Member states remain divided over the EU–Mercosur deal, and the Parliament’s decision to seek an opinion from the Court reflects and reinforces those divisions. Some governments, particularly in countries with strong export sectors in industrial goods and services, have publicly supported the agreement and called for progress towards ratification. Others, often under pressure from domestic agricultural and environmental constituencies, have expressed reservations or outright opposition in its current form.
These differing national positions have made it difficult for the Council to reach a unified stance on the timing and conditions for concluding the agreement. The legal clarification requested from the Court could influence whether national parliaments will eventually be called upon to ratify the pact, which in turn affects political calculations in capitals. Until the Court delivers its opinion, member states are expected to continue internal consultations and technical work on the various components of the EU–Mercosur package.
Implications for EU trade policy and partner countries
The referral of the EU–Mercosur agreement to the Court of Justice has broader implications for the EU’s trade policy and for its partners in Latin America. For the EU, the move underscores how environmental and social standards, as well as questions of competence and democratic scrutiny, have become central to the negotiation and approval of major trade agreements. Future negotiations with other regions or countries are likely to be shaped by lessons drawn from the Mercosur process, including the need to anticipate legal and political challenges at an early stage.
For Mercosur countries, the parliamentary decision introduces further uncertainty about the timeline and conditions for EU market access concessions that have been negotiated over many years. Governments and business groups in the region have periodically expressed concern about delays and shifting expectations on the EU side, while also acknowledging that debates over sustainability and agriculture are politically salient within Europe. The Court’s eventual opinion will be closely watched by these partners, who will seek clarity on whether additional commitments or adjustments might be required.
Next steps in the judicial and political process
Credit: curia.europa.eu
Once the European Parliament’s request is formally transmitted, the EU Court of Justice will examine the legal questions raised and decide on the procedure and timetable for delivering an opinion. The Court may choose to hear written and oral submissions from EU institutions, member states and possibly other stakeholders, as has occurred in previous advisory proceedings on international agreements. The process can take many months, depending on the complexity of the issues and the Court’s workload.
During this period, the political institutions of the EU are expected to refrain from any final decision on ratification of the EU–Mercosur agreement. Parliamentary committees may, however, continue to scrutinise related policy areas, such as deforestation regulation, due diligence rules and support measures for affected sectors. Once the Court issues its opinion, Parliament and Council will need to assess its implications and decide whether to proceed with the agreement as negotiated, seek amendments, or reconsider the overall approach to relations with Mercosur.