Case C-460/26: Action brought on 10 May 2026 – Republic of Poland v Council of the European Union
Date: 2026-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Argentina, Brazil, Mercosur, Paraguay, Uruguay, interim agreement (EU), plant health product, precautionary principle, production standard, signature of an agreement, trade agreement (EU)








C_202603166EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/3166


22.6.2026






Action brought on 10 May 2026 – Republic of Poland v Council of the European Union


(Case C-460/26)

(C/2026/3166)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Republic of Poland claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (EU) 2026/183 (1) of 9 January 2026 on the signing and provisional application of the 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;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Poland puts forward the following pleas in law against the contested decision:
First plea in law alleging an infringement of Article 218(2) and (8) TFEU in conjunction with Article 4(3) and Article 13(2) TEU on account of infringement of the 1999 negotiating directives authorising the Commission to negotiate an association agreement with Mercosur and the artificial splitting of the agreement into two separate agreements in order to circumvent the unanimity procedure under Article 218(8) TFEU.
Second plea in law alleging misuse of powers in so far as the association agreement with Mercosur was artificially split in order to circumvent the requirement for unanimity in the Council and in so far as the contested decision was adopted in breach of the requirement for unanimity.
Third plea in law alleging infringement of Article 218(5) TFEU in conjunction with Articles 4(3) and 13(2) TEU in so far as the provisional application of the Interim Trade Agreement was authorised in a manner that could become indefinite.
Fourth plea in law alleging infringement of Article 218(6) and (11) TFEU in conjunction with Article 4(3) and Article 13(2) TEU on account of the provisional application of an Interim Trade Agreement despite the lack of consent on the part of the European Parliament and the Parliament’s submission of a request to the Court of Justice to examine the agreement’s compatibility with the Treaties.
Fifth plea in law alleging infringement of Article 293 TFEU on account of failure to apply the requirement for unanimity in the Council in a situation where the Council amended the Commission’s legislative proposal.
Sixth plea in law alleging failure to state reasons for the contested decision.
Seventh plea in law alleging infringement of Articles 39, 168, 173 and 191 TFEU on account of failure to observe the precautionary principle and failure to include mirror clauses in the agreement with regard to production standards, including conditions for the use of plant protection products.


(1)  OJ L, L/2026/183.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/3166/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)