The European Commission and the four Mercosur countries—Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay—will begin applying the controversial EU-Mercosur Agreement on May 1, 2026.
By planning to implement the trade provisions starting May 1, the European Commission is creating a fait accompli even before the Court of Justice of the European Union has issued its opinion and the European Parliament has cast its vote. Yet the Parliament had already decided on January 21, 2026, to refer the agreement to the Court for legal review.
The nationwide Network for Fair World Trade joins the transatlantic criticism voiced by numerous environmental, agricultural, development, and consumer organizations.
“The premature implementation of the controversial EU-Mercosur agreement, without waiting for the European Parliament’s decision and the review by the European Court of Justice, is not only short-sighted but also detrimental to democracy.”
Ludwig Essig, Coordinator of the Network for Fair Global Trade
“BAYER, VW, Thyssenkrupp & Co. have nothing to counter the corresponding sectors in the Mercosur countries. That is why the process of deindustrialization is likely to accelerate once again, which is why the transnational Latin American trade union confederation CCSCS also spoke out clearly against the deal. It is a travesty that the trade agreement is set to provisionally enter into force on May 1, of all days.
Jan Pehrke (Coordination Against BAYER Dangers)
“Indigenous communities are at risk of becoming the biggest losers of this agreement. While economic benefits are being discussed in Europe, land loss, displacement, and environmental destruction are on the rise locally. Economic profit is being extracted from indigenous territories without the communities being fairly included in decision-making.”
Jan Königshausen (Advisor on Indigenous Peoples, Society for Threatened Peoples)
By provisionally applying the trade agreement, the European Commission is doing workers on both sides of the Atlantic a disservice. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in Mercosur are at stake, while workers in European agriculture fear for their livelihoods. Putting this agreement into effect on May 1 is a slap in the face to everyone who advocates for good working conditions and fair wages.
Bettina Müller, Trade and Investment Policy Officer at PowerShift e.V.
Background
Following the Parliament’s decision in January, the Court of Justice of the European Union is examining three key questions:
first, whether splitting the agreement into a trade and a political part circumvents the participation rights of national parliaments;
second, whether the so-called rebalancing mechanism puts pressure on European environmental, health, and consumer protection laws, because new protective rules could trigger countermeasures if they are alleged to undermine trade advantages;
third, whether this weakens the European precautionary principle.
The rebalancing mechanism in particular is highly controversial: it does not automatically abolish existing standards, but it can have a significant deterrent effect on future legislation. New rules—such as those regarding the EU Deforestation Regulation, supply chains, or agricultural imports—could be delayed or watered down out of fear of dispute resolution procedures or trade policy countermeasures.
The agreement as a whole is under criticism due to the threat of deforestation and climate impacts, growing price pressure on smallholder farms, insufficient protection of labor and human rights, potential pressure on environmental and consumer protection standards, and a perceived democratic deficit resulting from the splitting of the treaty.
Contact: Jan Königshausen, Advisor on Indigenous Peoples – 65]G378o?6DF29D8:?6@<];