The European Union’s landmark free trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc - comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay - may face delays of up to two years following a vote in the European Parliament to send the deal to the EU Court of Justice for a legal review. The agreement, signed on Saturday, still requires ratification by all EU member states before it can officially take effect.

Opposition to the pact is led by France, the EU’s largest agricultural producer, which argues that the deal would sharply increase imports of cheap beef, sugar, and poultry, undermining domestic farmers who have repeatedly protested. A group of 144 MEPs submitted a motion asking the Court of Justice to determine whether the agreement can be provisionally applied before full ratification and whether its terms restrict the EU’s ability to set environmental and consumer health policies. Court rulings on such matters typically take around two years.

The European Parliament approved the motion by a narrow margin of 334 votes in favor, 324 against, with 11 abstentions. While the European Commission retains the option to provisionally implement the deal pending the court’s ruling and later parliamentary approval, doing so could spark political backlash. The Parliament also maintains the authority to annul the agreement in the future.

Supporters of the pact, including Germany and Spain, stress its economic necessity amid U.S. trade disruptions under President Donald Trump. They argue the deal helps offset lost business due to U.S. tariffs, reduces EU dependence on China for critical minerals, and addresses the frustration of Mercosur governments after years of drawn-out negotiations.

The European Commission expressed regret over the parliamentary vote. “According to our analysis, the questions raised by Parliament in this motion are not justified,” said Olof Gill, the Commission’s spokesman. The referral introduces significant uncertainty, potentially leaving the EU-Mercosur trade deal in limbo for an extended period, with benefits and costs debated between farmers, industry, and political interests.