Almost 60 MEPs are to jointly table a motion for a resolution to seek an opinion from the Court of Justice of the EU (CEJU) on the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA).

The MEPs want Europe's top court to examine the compatibility of the controversial trade deal with European treaties.

Irish MEPs Lynn Boylan; Ciaran Mullooly; Luke Ming Flanagan; Michael McNamara and Kathleen Funchion are among the group.

The motion is expected to be put to a vote in the European Parliament at the end of the month.

Mercosur

Following over two decades of talks, the European Commission and the Mercosur countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) reached a political agreement on December 6, 2024.

In September, the commission put forward its proposal to ratify the partnership agreement and is thought to be eager to sign the deal at the end of the year.

However, in order to be ratified, the agreement will still need the approval of the EU Council and EU Parliament.

Despite being hailed as the biggest trade deal ever negotiated by the EU Commission, it has also faced significant criticism, particularly from EU farming organisations.

The trade agreement, if ratified, would allow Mercosur countries to export 99,000t of beef to the EU under a preferential tariff rate of 7.5%.

Motion

In a statement, the 58 MEPs from the EPP, S&D, Renew, Greens-EFA and The Left groups who are tabling the motion said:

"Beyond differences of opinion on the merits or drawbacks of the agreement, we deem it essential to the European legal order, to guarantee compliance with the acquis communautaire and to ensure sincere cooperation between the European institutions.

"Therefore, we are exercising the parliament’s prerogative to request an opinion from the CJEU to obtain greater clarity."

The motion to be tabled by the MEPs would seek an opinion from CEJU on the legal basis for the commission's decision to split the EU Mercosur agreement into an EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA) and an Interim Trade Agreement (ITA).

The MEPs believe this decision might violate the 1999 negotiating directives and the 2018 European Council conclusions recalling that the EU-Mercosur should be a mixed agreement and require national ratifications.

The motion references the rebalancing mechanism provided for in the agreement, which MEPs think may be incompatible with EU treaties.

The clause allows either party to seek compensation if a new policy measure significantly impairs the benefits of the trade deal.

The motion also notes "there are significant regulatory differences in food production and sanitary and veterinary standards between the European Union and the Mercosur countries".

The MEPs have questioned if the trade deal would comply with EU standards in food safety and under environmental and labour laws.

Support

Independent MEP Michael McNamara said that he is backing the cross-party motion "because there must be a doubt about the legality of circumventing the say-so of national parliaments on this trade deal".

"Politically, it stinks. The European Union, its commissioners and President Von der Leyen continue to pay lip service to subsidiarity, which should mean that national and perhaps even regional parliaments should be heard," he said.

Independent Ireland MEP Ciaran Mullooly said that he is confident that the CEJU "may well rule against the commission and the method and format of splitting and splicing this trade agreement".

"I’ve said from the start I’d do everything in my power to stop this rotten deal and I’m now joining colleagues to mount a legal challenge," he said.

The motion for a resolution will be submitted on November 14, with a view to being put to the vote during the plenary (full) session of the parliament from November 24 to 27 in Strasbourg.