The agreement signed on 17 January was intended to create a free trade area covering more than 700 million consumers and strengthen the European Union’s geostrategic position. However, political disputes, opposition from some Member States, and mass farmers’ protests in Strasbourg led to the decision to refer the agreement to the CJEU.
In the vote in the European Parliament 334 MEPs supported seeking the CJEU’s opinion, 324 were against, and 11 abstained. As a result, ratification of the agreement has been suspended at least until the Court issues its opinion, which could take even more than a year. Only after the CJEU’s analysis will the European Parliament be able to vote on whether to approve or reject the agreement.
Dispute over the rebalancing mechanism and consequences for the EU
At the heart of the controversy is the so-called rebalancing mechanism, which allows Mercosur countries to take compensatory measures if future EU regulations restrict their exports to Europe. Critics fear this could also cover future regulations on environmental and quality standards.
Referring the agreement to the CJEU means suspending the ratification process in the European Parliament, blocking political decisions for many months. In the meantime, the European Commission could theoretically apply the agreement provisionally, but such steps could trigger tensions between EU institutions.
The MEPs’ decision was also influenced by mass demonstrations by farmers in Strasbourg, who for several days blocked the area around Parliament with agricultural vehicles. Their voice also became visible on social media, where politicians highlighted the role of the protests in achieving the suspension of the agreement.
The opposition in the European Parliament and some politicians from Poland, including Krzysztof Hetman and Adam Jarubas, submitted a motion to refer the agreement to the CJEU. Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski noted that if the European Parliament does not take steps, Poland will take its own legal action domestically.
A divided Parliament, decisions hard to predict
The vote revealed deep political divisions in the European Parliament. The largest group, the European People’s Party, was formally opposed to referring the case to the CJEU; however, some of its MEPs – including from Poland, France, Austria and Belgium – supported seeking the Court’s opinion.
Observers point out that support for referring the case to the CJEU did not stem solely from legal arguments, but was also a reaction to political tensions and concerns about protecting farmers’ interests in Member States.
Read more: Electrification, the stiff collar of road transport: uncomfortable, costly, but no longer optional
What’s next for the Mercosur agreement?
Now it is up to the CJEU, which will assess the agreement’s compliance with the EU treaties. In practice, this means suspending any parliamentary decisions on the agreement for an extended period. The European Commission may still consider provisional application of the deal, but any such decision will carry political risk.
The EU–Mercosur agreement, negotiated for more than 20 years, was one of the EU’s largest trade initiatives in recent decades. Now, amid political disputes and mass protests, its future remains uncertain.
