The European Parliament is stepping into the legal spotlight with a motion seeking the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) opinion on the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA) and Interim Trade Agreement (ITA). This move could trigger reactions from a range of stakeholders including EU member states, Mercosur countries, national parliaments, and industries reliant on trade regulations. The Parliament’s intention is to clarify the legal standing of these agreements and their alignment with EU treaties, potentially impacting the future of EU trade policy with South America.
This motion was published on January 14, 2026, during a Plenary session of the European Parliament. It invokes parliamentary rules and treaty provisions, notably Article 218(11) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), instructing the Parliament President to formally seek the CJEU's opinion and inform the Council and Commission.
The document is a Motion for a Resolution, serving as a formal request for judicial review rather than new legislation. It contains detailed legal concerns regarding treaty compatibility, institutional balance, and procedural correctness tied to two key texts presented by the European Commission: the EMPA, a mixed agreement requiring unanimous Council approval and ratification by all member states, and the ITA, which concerns EU-exclusive competences requiring qualified majority approval.
the tension between increased EU-level trade competence versus national sovereignty in ratification processes; concerns about weakening the EU’s precautionary principle in food safety and environmental protection; and the institutional impact of splitting the agreements into two instruments, which may circumvent parliamentary scrutiny and alter Council voting dynamics.
For stakeholders, national parliaments face a potential reduction in ratification powers, while EU producers and consumers may see regulatory uncertainty affecting standards on agricultural imports from Mercosur. The Commission and Council must navigate this legal challenge amid political disagreements, and Mercosur countries like Brazil raise concerns on the agreement’s temporal reach. The motion could delay or reshape the trade partnership’s implementation, imposing both legal and diplomatic costs.
This action marks the start of a judicial review process, with the CJEU expected to provide its opinion next. The motion signals intensified parliamentary oversight and could influence future EU trade negotiations, requiring coordination among the Parliament, Commission, Council, and the CJEU.
← Atlas › News › International trade