CJEU Rejects Poland’s Bid to Suspend EU – Mercosur Deal

Uncategorized

October 14, 2026

CC BY-SA 4.0 International/ © Photo by Luxofluxo (Sign in front of the CJEU's Palais de la Cour de Justice.)

On September 29^th, the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rejected Poland’s request to suspend the provisional application of the EU–Mercosur trade agreement. Mercosur is a South American trading bloc, with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay participating in the agreement. In its order, the Court found that Poland had failed to demonstrate a risk of serious and irreparable harm before a final ruling on its legal challenge.

After more than 25 years of negotiations, the EU and Mercosur divided their planned partnership into two agreements. The broader Partnership Agreement covers political cooperation and trade and requires ratification by all EU Member States. The separate Interim Trade Agreement covers trade matters that fall within the EU’s competence and can be concluded without national ratification, although the European Parliament must still give its consent. In January 2026, the Council authorised the signing and provisional application of the trade agreement despite opposition from Poland and four other Member States. Under the agreement’s provisional application clause, its provisions have been applied provisionally since May 1^st, before the agreement has formally entered into force.

Poland challenged the Council’s decision in May and requested its suspension pending a final judgment. It alleged violations of the EU Treaties, an abuse of powers and a failure by EU institutions to cooperate sincerely. Poland also argued that cheaper agricultural imports from Mercosur could reduce European farmers’ incomes and drive some producers out of business. It raised concerns about differences in agricultural production standards, particularly regarding pesticides, environmental protection and animal welfare.

The Court examined whether these concerns justified suspending the agreement before the main case was decided. It held that allegations of unlawful conduct, even if subsequently established, were insufficient to demonstrate urgency. The Court also stressed that EU food safety rules and pesticide residue limits continue to apply to imported products. The agreement itself requires exporters to comply with the importing party’s health and safety requirements. Poland had also failed to provide sufficient evidence that increased competition would cause serious and irreversible economic harm. Furthermore, the Council’s decision allows the Commission to monitor agricultural imports and introduce safeguards where increased imports threaten serious injury to EU producers. The Court consequently dismissed Poland’s request without examining the legality of the Council’s decision.

The ruling leaves wider institutional questions unresolved. The Commission’s original proposal envisaged provisional application after the EU had completed its approval procedures, including Parliament’s consent. The Council instead authorised provisional application when signing the agreement. Parliament has separately requested a CJEU opinion on whether the agreements’ legal structure and approval procedure comply with EU law. Provisional application gives the Council considerable authority to act before an agreement’s final approval. The division into an EU-only trade agreement and a broader partnership also changes the role of national governments and parliaments in the approval process. For now, the Court’s order allows the agreement to remain in operation while these legal questions await resolution.

Sources