EN
Deutsch
EspañolVote in the European Parliament
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION seeking an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the proposed Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Common Market of the South, the Argentine Republic, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, of the other part, and the proposed Interim Agreement on Trade between the European Union, of the one part, and the Common Market of the South, the Argentine Republic, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, of the other part
Motion for a resolution
Date: 21.01.2026Reference: B10-0061/2026interim agreement (EU)division of powerstrade agreementfood safetyinstitutional balance (EU)Mercosuropinion of the Court of Justice (EU)common agricultural policyconsumer protection
Overall Result
Rejected- 225 For
- 402 Against
- 13 Abstention
- 79 Did not vote
How we count
- Yes, No and Abstention come from the European Parliament's roll-call voting protocol.
- “Did not vote” is derived: MEPs with a mandate on the voting day for whom no vote was recorded. Abstentions do not count towards this.
- Subsequent vote corrections are shown but do not change the official result.
- Each vote (overall vote, amendment, partial vote) counts separately. Therefore totals may differ from pages that count differently.
Status and procedure
Outcome as recorded by the European Parliament.
- Vote held on
- Latest recorded step
- Plenary · (296 days ago)
- Next scheduled step
- No further step is scheduled in the source.
Procedure timeline
2026/2560(RSP) · RSP
Recorded procedure activities. These do not establish whether a law has entered into force.
- Latest recorded: Plenary
Recorded activities (1)
- Plenary vote results
Scheduled activities (not confirmation of completion)
- Plenary vote
Procedure file (OEIL) · European Parliament data
Retrieved:
Sources
Data: EP Open Data API
What is this about?
- The request concerns the legal compatibility of the proposed EU-Mercosur partnership agreement and interim trade deal with EU treaties.
- The key issue is the Commission’s decision to split the originally unified association agreement into two separate instruments.
- Concerns focus on whether this division aligns with principles of conferred powers and loyal cooperation between EU institutions and member states.
- Additionally, doubts persist about adherence to EU environmental, health, and consumer protection standards.
- The Parliament seeks a Court of Justice opinion to clarify competency distribution and democratic legitimacy in the process.
Vote by political group
How the political groups voted
Non-attached Members (NI)For23
- 23For
- 1Against
- 2Abstention
- 4Did not vote
European People's Party (EPP)For40
- 40For
- 139Against
- 0Abstention
- 8Did not vote
European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR)For37
- 37For
- 37Against
- 0Abstention
- 5Did not vote
Patriots for Europe (PfE)For72
- 72For
- 1Against
- 7Abstention
- 6Did not vote
Renew Europe (Renew)For7
- 7For
- 60Against
- 3Abstention
- 5Did not vote
Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D)For10
- 10For
- 102Against
- 0Abstention
- 24Did not vote
Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN)For24
- 24For
- 1Against
- 0Abstention
- 2Did not vote
The Left in the European Parliament (GUE/NGL)For12
- 12For
- 15Against
- 1Abstention
- 18Did not vote
Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA)For0
- 0For
- 46Against
- 0Abstention
- 7Did not vote
Members
Showing 10 of 719
| Name | Country | Group | Vote Position |
|---|---|---|---|
 France | EPP | For | |
 Finland | ECR | For | |
 Austria | PfE | For | |
 Slovenia | EPP | For | |
| France | PfE | For | |
| France | EPP | For | |
 Italy | PfE | For | |
 Poland | EPP | For | |
 Cyprus | NI | For | |
| Austria | PfE | For |
