European Parliament session review, January 2026: In Strasbourg, MEPs significantly complicated the path to an EU–Mercosur agreement by referring it to the Court of Justice, while strengthening “Social Europe” through enhanced passenger rights. They also approved a new aid mechanism for Ukraine and intensified debates on democracy and human rights. Beyond the influence of corporate lobbies, this week showed that the European Parliament can at times break from the Commission–Council line to better defend the interests of EU citizens.
Why did the European Parliament move against the EU–Mercosur agreement?
The January 2026 plenary session in Strasbourg will be remembered as the moment the European Parliament hit the brakes on the EU–Mercosur free trade agreement. By requesting a formal opinion from the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on the agreement’s compatibility with EU Treaties, MEPs chose to judicialise a deeply political debate involving agriculture, climate and democratic sovereignty. In practice, the CJEU is the Union’s highest court: until it delivers its opinion, Parliament will not ratify the deal, effectively blocking its full entry into force.
This request for an opinion de facto suspends the agreement’s progress for months, if not years, and sends a clear signal to Member States and the Commission. The Commission could still try to provisionally apply certain parts of the deal – as EU trade law allows – but such a move would be politically explosive in light of Parliament’s vote. The tally was razor‑thin: 334 votes in favour of the referral, 324 against and 11 abstentions.
Behind these figures lies a stark divide: on one side, conservative and liberal groups who present the agreement as a “geopolitical lever” against China; on the other, a heterogeneous coalition of the Left, the Greens and part of the S&D (Socialists and Democrats), joined by right‑wing MEPs sensitive to farmers’ protests. This is further complicated by national dynamics: the French delegation voted overwhelmingly in favour of the referral, often breaking with their political groups’ official lines. For trade unions and rural communities, this vote signals that part of Parliament refuses to let trade deals be pushed through without democratic oversight or social guarantees.
Aid to Ukraine: how will the new joint loan work?
Another highlight of the session was the continuation of financial support for Ukraine. After two years of war, the EU is trying to stabilise an aid framework that is more predictable and less vulnerable to national vetoes or budget deadlocks. MEPs approved the principle of a new loan mechanism for Ukraine, guaranteed by the EU budget and funded through joint borrowing. In essence, the EU borrows on long‑term markets – often at better rates than individual Member States – and then lends the money to Kyiv. Repayments will only begin once the situation allows and once Russia has started paying reparations.
This strategy extends the approach used during the pandemic and in the wake of the 2022 invasion: pooling efforts so that the most fragile states are not the first to buckle. It also reopens sensitive debates on the use of frozen Russian assets and on spending priorities: how much for military aid, how much for reconstruction of infrastructure, and how much for supporting refugees within the EU? For younger, socially engaged readers, the underlying question is simple: how much debt is the EU willing to take on for geopolitical purposes, and where do social policies fit in this hierarchy of choices?
Motion of censure against Ursula von der Leyen rejected
The Strasbourg session also featured a new motion of censure against the European Commission, tabled by far‑right and sovereignist forces. Officially, the motion sought to punish President Ursula von der Leyen for her handling of the Mercosur deal and broader trade policy. In reality, it mainly served as a media platform to test their attacks on the EU executive, combining anti–free trade rhetoric, criticism of the “unelected” Commission and identity‑based talking points.
The motion was rejected by a broad majority, falling far short of the two‑thirds threshold required to topple the Commission. Most groups – including those most critical of Mercosur – refused to hand the radical right a symbolic victory. The message is twofold: the Commission survives, but the EU–Mercosur agreement no longer enjoys automatic political backing.
Health and transport: new rules on critical medicines and passenger rights
Moving beyond high‑level politics, the plenary also delivered concrete gains for everyday life. On critical medicines, Parliament adopted an ambitious text to secure access to essential molecules (such as key antibiotics, insulin and certain cancer treatments), encourage production in Europe and require greater transparency in pharmaceutical supply chains. The goal is clear: the next shortage should be managed through public planning and strategic stocks, not through last‑minute appeals to “civic responsibility” from patients and health workers.
On air passenger rights, MEPs drew clear red lines against attempts by Member States and airlines to weaken existing protections. Parliament confirmed the right to compensation for delays starting at three hours, rejecting proposals from governments to raise the threshold to four or six hours. The text, adopted by an overwhelming majority of more than 600 votes, also secures free cabin baggage, guarantees that children under 14 and passengers with reduced mobility can sit with their companion at no extra cost, and introduces pre‑filled forms to simplify claims.
For the average traveller, this means that if a flight is delayed by more than three hours, airlines cannot just offer a voucher and an apology; they must pay compensation and, where necessary, provide meals and accommodation. These wins are the direct result of a balance of power between industry lobbies, governments and MEPs who chose to respond to citizen and consumer pressure.
Democracy, human rights and the battle of ideas
The January session also included several resolutions on the state of democracy and human rights. MEPs adopted the annual report on fundamental rights, with a focus on the repression of social movements in Iran, the crisis in Venezuela and the increasing criminalisation of solidarity with migrants.
These texts do not have direct legal force, but they strongly influence diplomatic priorities and sanctions policy. They provide the basis for targeted measures or for human‑rights clauses in trade and cooperation agreements. For activists, they are a reminder that Parliament remains an important forum for international solidarity, even when it does not immediately translate into binding legislation.
Beyond the votes: symbols and political messages
The week was also marked by powerful symbols. A formal sitting commemorated the 40th anniversary of Spain and Portugal’s accession to the EU, with speeches by King Felipe VI and President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa. Both framed Europe as a vital bulwark against authoritarianism and as a shield against the rise of the far right.
At the opening of the session, President Roberta Metsola paid tribute to the victims of the Crans‑Montana fire and the rail collision in Spain, asking the chamber to observe a minute’s silence. She also delivered a sharp political message on the Greenland crisis and pressure from Washington, condemning “blackmail” and reaffirming the EU’s firm support for Denmark and the Greenlandic people.
Finally, the debriefing of the December European Council with Antonio Costa and Ursula von der Leyen crystallised the tension between two visions for the Union: a “Power Europe” centred on defence, industry and borders, and a “Social Europe” centred on democratic rights and public services. The central question running through the week was clear: should European integration primarily serve to protect markets and borders, or to guarantee social rights and freedoms for the next generation?
FAQ – Understanding the January 2026 session of the European Parliament
What has the European Parliament decided on the EU-Mercosur agreement?
MEPs voted on a resolution asking the European Court of Justice to verify whether the agreement is compatible with European treaties. Until the Court has issued its opinion, Parliament cannot ratify the agreement, which blocks its full implementation. The vote was very close: 334 in favour, 324 against, with 11 abstentions.
Which groups supported referring the EU–Mercosur agreement to the Court of Justice?
The environmentalist groups (Greens/EFA) at 73% and the left (The Left) at 100% voted overwhelmingly in favour of referring the matter to the Court, as they denounce the impact of the agreement on the climate, agriculture and social rights. The far-right Patriots for Europe group (90%) also supported the referral, but for different reasons (rejection of free trade and anti-Commission populism). Part of Renew Europe (notably the French and Belgians) (34%) and several ECR MEPs (Polish and French) (47%) also voted in favour, breaking with the more trade-friendly line of their political families.
Does this mean that Mercosur is dead?
No, the agreement is not 'dead', but it has been seriously slowed down and politically weakened. The Commission could attempt to provisionally implement certain parts, but this would be highly controversial, as Parliament has clearly expressed its doubts.
What does this mean in practical terms for Ukraine?
Parliament has approved the principle of a new European loan to Ukraine, guaranteed by the EU budget and financed by a joint loan. In practice, the EU borrows on the long-term markets and then lends to Ukraine, which allows the effort to be spread over time and prevents a few Member States from bearing the entire financial burden.
What changes for air passengers?
MEPs defended maintaining compensation for delays of three hours or more, while governments wanted to raise this threshold to four or six hours. They also supported the idea of one free piece of cabin baggage and one small personal item, pre-filled forms for compensation claims, and a guarantee that children and people with reduced mobility can sit next to their companion free of charge.
Why does Parliament refer to 'critical' medicines?
These are medicines that we cannot do without (key antibiotics, insulin, certain anti-cancer drugs, etc.), and which have been in short supply in recent years. Parliament wants to secure these supply chains, encourage production in Europe and impose greater transparency on laboratories to prevent healthcare professionals and patients from having to deal with crises at the last minute.
Who really makes the decisions in the EU institutions: the Council, the Commission or the Parliament?
In summary: the European Council (heads of state and government) sets the broad political guidelines; the Commission proposes the texts; the Parliament and the Council (ministers) vote on them and amend them. The January session showed that, on certain issues (Mercosur, passengers, medicines), the Parliament can deviate from the Commission-governments line in order to better defend the interests of citizens.
Sources
- European Parliament – “EU-Mercosur: MEPs request a legal opinion on its conformity with the EU treaties”, 20 January 2026:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20260116IPR32450/eu-mercosur-meps-demand-a-legal-opinion-on-its-conformity-with-the-eu-treaties - European Parliament – “Parliament rejects motion of censure against European Commission”, 22 January 2026:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20250704IPR29455/meps-reject-motion-of-censure-against-the-european-commission - European Parliament – “European Parliament stands behind air passenger rights”, 20 January 2026:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20260116IPR32442/european-parliament-stands-behind-air-passenger-rights - European Parliament – “December European Council debrief and vote on Ukraine loan”, 19 January 2026:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/agenda/plenary-news/2026-01-19/0/december-european-council-debrief-and-vote-on-ukraine-loan - Euronews – “EU-Mercosur trade deal referred to Court of Justice”, 20 January 2026:
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/01/21/european-parliament-freezes-mercosur-deal-referring-it-to-eu-court-of-justice - The Diplomat in Spain – “European Parliament requests a legal opinion from the EU Court of Justice on the Mercosur agreement”, 21 January 2026:
https://thediplomatinspain.com/en/2026/01/22/european-parliament-requests-a-legal-opinion-from-the-eu-court-of-justice-on-the-mercosur-agreement/ - EUobserver – “Fourth bid to censure von der Leyen in European Parliament fails”, 21 January 2026:
https://www.euobserver.com/eu-political/ar27d8b1b5 - European Sting – “European Parliament stands behind air passenger rights”, 22 January 2026:
https://europeansting.com/2026/01/23/european-parliament-stands-behind-air-passenger-rights/ - bilaterals.org – “EU-Mercosur mobilisations continue as farmers ask MEPs to uphold democracy”, 21 January 2026:
https://www.bilaterals.org/?eu-mercosur-mobilisations-continue-as-farmers-ask-meps-to-uphold-democracy
