Skip to content
EU Parl WatchResearch
Projects

Decision

Request for opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the proposed EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA) and Interim Trade Agreement (ITA)

Effect
Adopted
Result
334 for · 324 against · 11 abstained roll call
Date
21 January 2026, 12:48–12:49
Kind
Resolution
More facts (9)
Margin
narrowly
Text
Motion B-10-2026-0060
Dossier
2026/2560(RSP)
Source
Motion for a resolution
Topics
Trade & customsForeign affairsEconomy & single market Assigned by a model, not checked by hand.
Votes
2 votes · 2 roll calls
Requested by
The Left (1 roll call) · Patriots (1 roll call)
Sitting
Wednesday 21 January 2026
Final vote
183884
More
Cite this page Roll-call results (EP) (opens the official site)
Link to this page
Votes on this decision
Members on the final vote

Result

The final vote and what it means for this kind of decision.

Final vote: 334 for, 324 against, 11 abstained (roll call).

Adopted narrowly.

Parliament adopted the text as its official position.

Backed by The Left, Greens, Patriots and ESN; opposed by S&D, Renew, EPP and ECR.

Groups

Members' votes, each counted in the group they belonged to on the day. No vote: in office that day, no position recorded. Majority line: the most common position. Clear line: a position with at least two thirds of the group's votes (at least 10 members voting), otherwise Divided. Cohesion: Agreement Index, 0 = evenly split, 1 = all voted the same (method).
GroupForAgainstAbst.No voteMajority lineClear lineCohesionBar
The LeftFor 38Against 0Abst. 0No vote 8 of 46Majority line ForClear line For Cohesion 1.00
GreensFor 36Against 12Abst. 1No vote 4 of 53Majority line ForClear line For Cohesion 0.60
S&DFor 35Against 90Abst. 0No vote 11 of 136Majority line AgainstClear line Against Cohesion 0.58
RenewFor 24Against 46Abst. 0No vote 5 of 75Majority line AgainstClear line Divided Cohesion 0.49
EPPFor 43Against 135Abst. 2No vote 7 of 187Majority line AgainstClear line Against Cohesion 0.63
ECRFor 35Against 39Abst. 0No vote 5 of 79Majority line AgainstClear line Divided Cohesion 0.29
PatriotsFor 72Against 1Abst. 7No vote 6 of 86Majority line ForClear line For Cohesion 0.85
ESNFor 24Against 1Abst. 0No vote 2 of 27Majority line ForClear line For Cohesion 0.94
No groupFor 27Against 0Abst. 1No vote 2 of 30Majority line —Clear line No line Cohesion —

Members who changed group are counted in the group of the day: Branko GRIMS changed group, Elena YONCHEVA changed group, Elisabetta GUALMINI changed group, Ewa ZAJĄCZKOWSKA-HERNIK changed group, Jessika VAN LEEUWEN changed group, Lukas SIEPER changed group, Nikola BARTŮŠEK changed group, Nikolas FARANTOURIS changed group, Pina PICIERNO changed group, Roberto VANNACCI changed group, Sander SMIT changed group, Taner KABILOV changed group.

Voted against their group, 102

Members who voted otherwise than a clear line (at least two thirds of the votes cast, at least 10 members voting) of the group they sat in that day. A group without a clear line is divided and not counted.

Countries

The final vote by national delegation.

Votes by country (27 delegations)
Members' votes by country. No vote: in office that day, no position recorded. Cohesion: Agreement Index of the delegation, 0 = evenly split, 1 = all the same; it reflects the mix of groups (method).
CountryForAgainstAbst.No voteCohesion
Austria911000.33
Belgium125230.45
Bulgaria79010.34
Cyprus4200—
Czechia48720.13
Germany3554160.40
Denmark113010.89
Estonia0700—
Spain1042080.71
Finland69000.40
France790021.00
Greece137010.47
Croatia46020.40
Hungary182010.85
Ireland94010.54
Italy2152030.57
Lithuania2702—
Luxembourg2400—
Latvia1800—
Malta0402—
Netherlands1317010.35
Poland480051.00
Portugal316020.76
Romania1612140.33
Sweden415020.68
Slovenia5400—
Slovakia86010.36

Members

Each member’s recorded position on the final roll call, in the group they sat in that day. Filter by country, group, position or name.

Show all 669 members

Debate speakers and how they voted

No plenary speech is linked to this dossier.

All votes on this decision, 2

In voting order. Result: for–against–abstained (a show of hands has no count). Requested by: the groups that asked for a roll call, a split vote or a separate vote.
No.VoteRecordedResultRequested by
1Final vote on the motion for a resolution B10-0060/2026 – Motion for a resolution Roll call334 for, 324 against, 11 abstained AdoptedRequested byroll call: The Left, Patriots
2Final vote on the motion for a resolution B10-0061/2026 – Motion for a resolution Roll call225 for, 402 against, 13 abstained RejectedRequested byroll call: The Left, Patriots

Roll calls requested by The Left, Patriots.

Text

The text voted on.

Motion B-10-2026-0060

AI: The text in short Written by AI from the official text — check the source

Parliament seeks an opinion from the Court of Justice on whether the proposed EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and Interim Trade Agreement are compatible with the Treaties, given concerns about their split and the rebalancing mechanism.

Read the text · Report a problem

Dossier

Where the dossier stands and its other decisions in plenary.

2026/2560(RSP) · Resolution on a topical subject

Parliament adopted the text on 21 January 2026. This is its final position on the matter.

Show the 3 steps of the dossier
  1. Tabled for plenary (done)
  2. Plenary vote · Adopted 21 January 2026 (done)
  3. Parliament’s position · Final (done)

Connections

What this decision touches: the procedural chain, the same text, running issues, votes that split the chamber the same way.

Show 11 connections: Running issue: EU-Mercosur agreement · Final votes that split the chamber the same way

Running issue: EU-Mercosur agreement

Final votes that split the chamber the same way

Sources & citation

Where the facts on this page come from, and how to cite it.

Permalink
https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/decisions/2026-01-21/4
Official sources
Data source
Licensed CC BY 4.0.
Retrieved
25 September 2026

Cite as

European Parliament (2026). “Request for opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the proposed EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA) and Interim Trade Agreement (ITA)”. Decision, 21 January 2026. votingId 183884, document B-10-2026-0060, reference 2026/2560(RSP). EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/decisions/2026-01-21/4 (retrieved 25 September 2026). Official sources: Roll-call votes, sitting of 21 January 2026 (European Parliament), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-01-21-RCV_EN.html; Results of votes, sitting of 21 January 2026 (European Parliament), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-01-21-VOT_EN.html. Data: EP Open Data API: decisions of the sitting MTG-PL-2026-01-21, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/api/v2/meetings/MTG-PL-2026-01-21/decisions?format=application%2Fld%2Bjson (CC BY 4.0).
BibTeX 
@misc{epw-decision-2026-01-21-4,
  author = {{European Parliament}},
  title = {{Request for opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the proposed EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA) and Interim Trade Agreement (ITA)}},
  year = {2026},
  date = {2026-01-21},
  howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/decisions/2026-01-21/4}},
  url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/decisions/2026-01-21/4},
  urldate = {2026-09-25},
  publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
  note = {Decision. votingId 183884, document B-10-2026-0060, reference 2026/2560(RSP). Official source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-01-21-RCV\_EN.html, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-01-21-VOT\_EN.html. Data: EP Open Data API: decisions of the sitting MTG-PL-2026-01-21 (CC BY 4.0)}
}