Brussels, 19 November 2025 – Today, the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament, led by the President of the European Parliament Metsola, rejected a motion for a resolution jointly tabled by MEPs, requesting an opinion from the European Court of Justice on whether the EU-Mercosur agreements comply with EU founding treaties. The initiative is supported by more than 145 MEPs from EPP, Socialists and Democrats, Renew, The Left and Green groups.
The motion was rejected on grounds that the Council has not yet done its request for Parliament’s consent. However legal experts argue that this argument is legally unfounded. They note that the European Parliament can request an opinion on the EU-Mercosur Agreements – the Interim Trade Agreement (ITA) and EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA) – as a preventive measure, before the signature and conclusion of the proposed agreements and perfectly legitimate.
Audrey Changoe, Trade and Investment Policy Coordinator at CAN Europe said:
“As Civil society, we have been raising alarms about the legal issues and potential breaches with EU law the EU-Mercosur deal poses. In particular, the re-balancing mechanism could restrain the EU’s ability to introduce new environmental or health protections, creating a regulatory chill that threatens the EU’s regulatory autonomy .
Moreover, the European Commission has never clarified the legal bases for splitting the agreement, an undemocratic move which sidelines national parliaments in order to fast-track the ratification process . This not only goes against the Commission’s negotiating mandate, but also the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which requires EU institutions to clearly explain and justify any legal act that has binding effects.”
Requesting an opinion before the signature would allow the Court to assess whether the proposals are fully compatible with EU law. If the request comes too late, it may be less relevant and even inadmissible due to procedural complications.
The European Commission and Mercosur countries – Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay – wrapped up the agreement in December 2024. The Commission launched the ratification process in September and plans to sign the deal on the 20th of December.
“The highest court of the European Union holds review powers in the opinion procedure to act as the guardian of fundamental principles of EU law. The European Parliament’s primary role is to uphold these values and requesting the Court’s opinion is a perfectly legitimate step. It is deeply worrying to see that under pressure from geopolitical interests and corporate lobbying, European Parliament leaders are denying MEPs democratic right to request a vote, using weak legal arguments in order to pave the way for an already highly controversial deal” says Audrey Changoe.
ENDS
LINKS:
- Legal analysis by Professor Nicolas de Sadeleer on the compatibility of the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and Interim Trade Agreement with EU founding treaties
- Legal analysis on the Rebalancing Mechanism by Professor Christina Eckes
- Legal analysis by Prof. Dr. Markus Krajewski / Julian Werner on the legal issues of splitting approach
