On January 21, 2026, the European Parliament voted in favor of a resolution to refer the EU–Mercosur agreement to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Court is to assess whether the agreement signed by the European Commission complies with EU treaties. Polish MEPs argue that its adoption could lead to price volatility, an influx of goods failing to meet EU standards, and significant problems for domestic farmers. They also harbor doubts regarding the procedure used to process the documents.
The Economic Partnership Agreement (EMPA) and the Interim Trade Agreement (iTA) with the South American bloc—comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay—were signed on January 17 in Asunción, Paraguay. The signatories included EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and his Mercosur counterparts, in the presence of EC President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa.
“We have substantive objections to the agreement with Mercosur. First, we believe it is unfavorable for European farmers, including those from Poland. Second, it is highly detrimental to consumers because it admits goods from South America that are not raised or produced with the high level of health protection found in the European Union. Third, it is disadvantageous for Europe for geopolitical reasons, as it allows goods created using fertilizers from Russia onto the European market,” says Adam Bielan, an MEP from the Law and Justice (PiS) party, speaking to the Newseria agency. “Brazil is currently the main importer of Russian artificial fertilizers, which we have banned in the European Union. In a way, we are helping Putin earn money from fertilizer sales. This agreement is proof of the European Union’s hypocrisy.”
A Tight Vote and Legal Ambiguities
On Wednesday, January 21, the European Parliament voted on two resolutions calling for a legal opinion from the CJEU regarding the trade deal. One of these was adopted with 334 votes in favor, 324 against, and 11 abstentions. The Parliament will now continue analyzing the texts while awaiting the CJEU’s opinion on the legal basis of both documents. Only after receiving this opinion will the Parliament decide whether to grant or withhold consent.
“This matter is of such great importance that the CJEU should address this legal act immediately upon receipt of the complaint. Given the prevailing political arrangement within the Court, it is difficult to expect common sense to prevail,” comments Jadwiga Wiśniewska, an MEP from Law and Justice.
There are significant concerns regarding the legal structure of the deal. The EU–Mercosur agreement effectively consists of two parallel legal texts (EMPA and iTA). This distinction is crucial for approval procedures by EU institutions and the division of competencies between the EU and Member States.
“Referral to the CJEU should, in our opinion, suspend the agreement’s operation. At the same time, we appeal to the Polish government to file a complaint independently of the request for an opinion. Such a complaint can be filed by any Member State,” adds Adam Bielan. “There is a risk that this agreement will remain in force until the CJEU rules on the matter. This is because the European Commission, in violation of treaties, decided it could apply provisionally until ratification by the European Parliament, which might only happen after the CJEU opinion.”
Criticism Across the Political Spectrum
Critical voices regarding the trade deal are coming from all sides of the Polish political scene, including the European People’s Party (EPP), to which politicians from the Civic Coalition (KO) and the Polish People’s Party (PSL) belong. While the EPP faction largely supports the agreement as urgently needed for Europe’s economic and geopolitical position, Polish members disagree.
“The EU–Mercosur agreement will only be significant for the EU and Member States if it is fair and just for all stakeholders. Unfortunately, this version of the agreement means that from the start, some are counting losses while others count profits, so it cannot be fair. We are speaking primarily from the Polish agricultural perspective. We must remember this isn’t just about flooding us with products from Mercosur countries, but about food security and maintaining agricultural production in Poland at the current level, because we earn excellently from the export of Polish food,” says Krzysztof Hetman, an MEP from the Polish People’s Party.
Data from the National Support Centre for Agriculture (KOWR) shows that between January and October 2025, the value of agri-food exports from Poland amounted to €48.5 billion (PLN 206 billion), an 8% increase compared to the same period the previous year. The main recipients are EU countries, accounting for 75% of exports in this segment (€36.5 billion, +10% y/y). The highest revenues came from sales to Germany (€12.3 billion), France (€3.4 billion), and the Netherlands (€2.8 billion).
“If cheaper goods from South America flow into the single European market—and unfortunately, people still vote with their wallets—they will push out Polish products. This could cause us to drown under the current overproduction, potentially leading to a market and price collapse,” warns Krzysztof Hetman.
Economic Projections and Safeguards
According to the European Commission, the value of EU trade with Mercosur countries reached over €111 billion in 2024 (exports: €55.2bn, imports: €56bn). The agreement aims to increase annual sales to Mercosur by 39% (approx. €49 billion). The EC predicts that eliminating import tariffs will boost EU exports most in the automotive sector (€20.7bn, +200%), machinery (€5.4bn, +35%), and chemicals (€4.8bn, +50%).
The Commission argues that the deal will also benefit EU farmers by supporting high-quality traditional products and protecting authentic EU goods. However, MEPs remain skeptical about the standards.
“The intention of the EU–Mercosur agreement is obviously economic development and market expansion. It covers a market of 800 million consumers, creating the largest economic area—if it is created. But clear and equal rules must apply; there cannot be unequal competition. That is what we are fighting for in Parliament: to guarantee security and equality for agricultural producers and food security protection for consumers,” says Andrzej Halicki, an MEP from the Civic Coalition.
The EC has committed to monitoring the market, particularly regarding agriculture. It highlights calibrated tariff quotas for sensitive products, strengthened controls, and a €6.3 billion fund starting in 2028 to act as a protective layer for farmers.
However, the disparity in production standards remains a key point of contention.
“Everything placed on the single European market must meet the standards we have set here. The best example is agricultural products. In the EU, we pursue a consistent policy of withdrawing many pesticides and antibiotics from production. Yet, we want to import goods from Mercosur countries where these substances are still used. This is not fair competition. From the start, a Polish or European farmer cannot produce at the same prices as farmers from South America,” emphasizes Krzysztof Hetman.
“Today, we are looking primarily at food security issues; we must defend and protect the European market from unwanted products. This is our main task in Parliament right now. Protecting farmers from price shocks and uncontrolled influx of goods is also vital. The standards here are very rigid and guarantee safety, but all of this must still take on a legal character,” concludes Andrzej Halicki.
