Brussels, Belgium. The European Parliament has voted to refer the EU–Mercosur trade agreement to the EU’s highest court, casting uncertainty over the deal and pausing its ratification. The Court of Justice of the European Union will assess its compatibility with European law in a process that could take more than a year.
Parliament vote sends agreement to court
On 21 January, MEPs voted by a narrow margin to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union to rule on whether the newly signed EU–Mercosur agreement complies with EU law. The court’s opinion could require changes if parts of the agreement are found to conflict with EU rules.
Ratification is on hold while the legal review proceeds, delaying an agreement the European Commission has described as central to its trade and market-opening strategy.
Farmer protests and political pressure
The vote took place as hundreds of farmers gathered outside the Parliament in tractors and celebrated when the result was announced, amid wider unrest linked to agri-food decisions across Europe in recent years.
Protests also took place in capitals including Brussels, Paris and Warsaw, where demonstrators said they feared cheaper imports produced under lower standards and with banned pesticides.
Commission defends deal as divisions persist
The Commission has continued to defend the agreement it negotiated on behalf of the EU’s 27 member states, a position reinforced by Ursula von der Leyen’s January trip to Paraguay to formally sign the Mercosur deal.
In Brussels, Commission trade spokesman Olof Gill said “the questions raised in the motion by the Parliament are not justified because the Commission has already addressed those questions and issues in a very detailed way.” The text notes that the agreement has gained momentum from Donald Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policy, while the Commission’s geo-economic rationale has not united Europe.
Member states split over provisional application
Germany, Spain and the Nordic countries have supported the deal, citing export opportunities as Europe faces pressure from China and uncertainty in the White House. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said “the agreement must now be provisionally applied.”
France, Ireland and Poland have opposed the prospect of provisional application as early as March, saying safeguards are insufficient to protect farmers from cheaper imports of sensitive products including beef, poultry and soybeans.
French government spokesperson Maud Bregeon warned that “the consequences, notably for the bond between people and the European Union, would be deeply damaging,” while France’s agriculture minister, Annie Genevard, described the move as “a denial of democracy” after the Parliament’s vote.
Agriculture’s role in the debate and references to Nutri-Score
The split over Mercosur reflects differing reliance on agriculture across member states. The text says that in Germany, where farming is marginal compared with sectors such as automotive or chemicals, trade gains dominate the debate, while even in supportive countries such as Spain or Greece, governments face resistance from farmers tied to small-scale, export-oriented and Protected Designation of Origin products.
The article compares the risk of a top-down approach on Mercosur to the trajectory of Nutri-Score, which it describes as polarising within EU agri-food policy. It says controversy has centred on Nutri-Score’s evaluation of PDO products, noting that cured meats and cheeses continue to receive penalties under an algorithm focused on fat, sugar and salt, and that a recent revision rated whole milk “C,” raising concerns about coherence. It also states that the update appears to have been driven more by efforts to accommodate certain food sectors than by robust scientific evidence.
The text says national resistance to Nutri-Score grew among member states including Portugal, Greece, Czechia and Poland, contributing to a shift in Brussels. It adds that under Agriculture Commissioner Christoph Hansen and a more farmer-focused approach, the Commission has gradually stepped away from Nutri-Score, while describing domestic risks as continuing due to what it calls a more rigid and interventionist posture from Nutri-Score leadership.
In January, Serge Hercberg, described as the system’s founder, defended a proposed advertising ban in France on “D” and “E” products, which the article says would compound damage affecting PDO cheese and meats, other dairy products and some fruit.
Next steps and broader policy implications
The article argues that the Commission will need to reflect diverse member-state and farmer realities in implementing major decisions such as Mercosur. It also says the EU should avoid repeating what it characterises as mistakes associated with Nutri-Score and should provide strong support to the agri-food sector on policies affecting farmer competitiveness, including nutrition labelling and trade policy.
What do you think the EU should prioritise while the EU–Mercosur agreement is under review by the Court of Justice of the European Union?