{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-460-26-r", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-460-26-r)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-07", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:9dbc3a", "proof": "sha256:f462af400f86cd8ef13bd36771abd3614772f21d97eb076456ed55f325375f77", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "eu:c-460-26-r", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Provisional text", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "ORDER OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "29 September 2026 ( * )", "paragraphs": [ "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20" ] }, { "title": "Order", "paragraphs": [ "para_22", "para_23" ] }, { "title": "Legal context", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The decision at issue", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "3         As set out in recitals 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 of the decision at issue:", "paragraphs": [ "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33" ] }, { "title": "4         Article 1 of that decision states:", "paragraphs": [ "para_35" ] }, { "title": "5         Article 2 of that decision provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52" ] }, { "title": "6         Article 3 of that decision is worded as follows:", "paragraphs": [ "para_54", "para_55" ] }, { "title": "The ITA", "paragraphs": [ "para_57" ] }, { "title": "8         Article 6.1 of that agreement, headed ‘Objectives’, provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62" ] }, { "title": "9         Article 6.4 of that agreement, headed ‘Rights and obligations’, provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79" ] }, { "title": "Background to the dispute", "paragraphs": [ "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90" ] }, { "title": "Procedure before the Court and forms of order sought", "paragraphs": [ "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98" ] }, { "title": "The application for interim measures", "paragraphs": [ "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103" ] }, { "title": "Arguments", "paragraphs": [ "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115" ] }, { "title": "Findings of the Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155" ] }, { "title": "On those grounds, the Vice-President of the Court hereby orders:", "paragraphs": [ "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Provisional text", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "ORDER OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "29 September 2026 ( * )", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "( Interim measures – Article 263 TFEU – Action for the annulment of an EU act – Article 278 TFEU – Application to suspend the operation of that act – Decision (EU) 2026/183 – Provisional application of the EU-Mercosur interim agreement on trade – Lack of urgency )", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "In Case C‑460/26 R,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "APPLICATION for suspension of operation under Article 278 TFEU, lodged on 10 May 2026,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Republic of Poland, represented by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "applicant,", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "v", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Council of the European Union, represented by A. Antoniadis, B. Driessen, L. Hamtcheva and J. Rurarz, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "defendant,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "supported by:", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Federal Republic of Germany , represented by J. Möller, N. Scheffel and R. Wolfe, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Kingdom of the Netherlands , represented by P. Huurnink and J. Langer, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Republic of Finland , represented by A. Laine and M. Pere, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "European Commission , represented by L. Baumgart, C. Hermes, M. Kocjan and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "interveners,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "after hearing the Advocate General, D. Spielmann,", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "makes the following", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Order", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "1         By its application for interim measures, the Republic of Poland asks the Court of Justice to order the suspension of operation of Council Decision (EU) 2026/183 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 (OJ L, 2026/183) (‘the decision at issue’), pending delivery of the judgment concluding the proceedings in Case C‑460/26.", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "2         The application was made at the same time as that Member State brought, on 10 May 2026, an action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision at issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Legal context", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "The decision at issue", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "3         As set out in recitals 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 of the decision at issue:", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "‘(1)      On 13 September 1999, the Council [of the European Union] authorised the [European] Commission to open negotiations with the Common Market of the South (“Mercosur”) and its State Parties for an agreement consisting of political, cooperation and trade parts. The negotiations were successfully concluded on 6 December 2024.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "(2)      The negotiations resulted in two parallel legal instruments. The first instrument is the Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, 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 (the “EMPA”), which includes the political dialogue and cooperation pillar and the trade and investment pillar. The second instrument is 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 (the “ITA”), which covers trade and investment liberalisation. The ITA will cease to have effect and will be replaced by the EMPA upon the entry into force of the latter.", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "(3)      Until the adoption and entry into force of a specific Union legislative act implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the EMPA and of the ITA for agricultural products, and with a view to enabling the Union to take rapid and effective action to protect its interests under the EMPA or the ITA, as appropriate, the Commission should be empowered to adopt, by means of implementing regulations, agricultural bilateral safeguard measures (“bilateral safeguard measures”) that are consistent with the EMPA or the ITA, as appropriate. With regard to sensitive agricultural products, the Commission should adopt bilateral safeguard measures also in accordance with the conditions under this Decision.", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "(5)      It should be possible for one or more Member States to request the Commission to adopt bilateral safeguard measures under the conditions set in the ITA and, with regard to sensitive agricultural products, in this Decision. If the Commission refuses such a request, it should inform the Council in a timely manner of the reasons for its refusal.", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "(6)      Therefore, the ITA should be signed.", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "(7)      The ITA should be applied on a provisional basis, pending its entry into force, between the Union, of the one part, and one or more of the Mercosur States which are Parties to the ITA (the “Signatory Mercosur States”), of the other part …’", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "4         Article 1 of that decision states:", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "‘The signing 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, is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of that Agreement.’", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "5         Article 2 of that decision provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "‘1.      Until the adoption and entry into force of a specific Union legislative act implementing the bilateral safeguard clause for agricultural products of the EMPA and of the ITA, the Commission may, by means of implementing regulations, adopt bilateral safeguard measures that are consistent with the conditions set out in Chapter 9 of the ITA and in this Decision.", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "2.      The Commission shall closely monitor the market for sensitive agricultural products, that is products subject to tariff-rate quotas of the Union in accordance with Section B of Annex 2-A (Tariff Elimination Schedule) to the ITA, in particular as regards import and export trends relating to Mercosur, production and price developments.", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "The Commission shall promptly assess the market situation on the basis of such monitoring, by linking a possible increase in imports of the relevant sensitive agricultural products to the evolution of production and/or consumption, exports, prices and market shares on the Union market, as well as exports from the Union.", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "Every six months, the Commission shall provide a monitoring report to the European Parliament and to the Council assessing the impact of imports of sensitive agricultural products, including on one or several Member States.", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "3.      Where there is sufficient prima facie evidence, in particular obtained by means of the monitoring and market situation assessment referred to in paragraph 2, of serious injury, or the threat of serious injury, to the Union industry for sensitive agricultural products, including in cases where such injury or threat thereof is geographically concentrated in one or more Member States, the Commission shall, without delay, initiate an investigation upon the request of one or more Member States or of any legal person or association acting on behalf of the Union industry active in the sector concerned.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "4.      For the purposes of this Article, the “Union industry” means the Union producers of like or directly competitive relevant products.", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "5.      The Commission shall examine, as a matter of priority, whether prima facie evidence of serious injury, or the threat of serious injury, to the Union industry exists in cases where there is a surge of imports or a decrease in prices concentrated in one or more Member States, or where there is a surge of imports or a decrease in the price of a product and the Union industry is predominantly established in one or more Member States.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "The Commission shall treat, in the absence of contrary indications, an increase of more than 5% year on year, as a rule, in the volume of imports under preferential terms of a given product from Signatory Mercosur States that is subject to a tariff rate quota as prima facie evidence of serious injury, or the threat of serious injury, to the Union industry, provided that at the same time the average import price for those imports from Signatory Mercosur States is at least 5%, as a rule, below the relevant average domestic price of like or directly competitive products during the same period.", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "6.      The Commission shall treat, in the absence of contrary indications, a decrease of more than 5% year on year, as a rule, in the average import price of a given product from Signatory Mercosur States imported into the Union on preferential terms that is subject to a tariff rate quota as prima facie evidence of serious injury or the threat of serious injury to the Union industry, provided that at the same time the average import price for that product from Signatory Mercosur States is at least 5%, as a rule, below the relevant average domestic price of like or directly competitive products during the same period.", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "7.      The Commission shall impose without delay or hesitation, and in the case of sensitive agricultural products at the latest within 21 days of receiving a request as referred to in paragraph 3, provisional bilateral safeguard measures to avert any injury to the Union industry that would be difficult to repair, including where such injury is geographically concentrated in one or more Member States.", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "8.      Given that detailed market monitoring is a standing feature of the Commission’s activities in the agricultural sector, the Commission shall endeavour to conclude any investigation for sensitive agricultural products regarding bilateral safeguard measures as swiftly as possible, with the aim of taking a final decision within four months of receiving a request as referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article. That period may be extended but shall not exceed the one-year period provided for in Article 9.13 of the ITA.", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "9.      A safeguard measure may be imposed where a relevant product originating in a Signatory Mercosur State is imported into the Union:", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "(a)      in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to Union production or consumption, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the Union industry, including where such injury or threat thereof is geographically concentrated in one or more Member States; and", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "(b)      the increase in imports is the result of obligations incurred under the ITA, including of the reduction or elimination of the customs duties on that product.", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "10.      A safeguard measure may take the form of a temporary suspension of the schedule of tariff reduction for the relevant product, or a reduction of the tariff preference back to the most-favoured-nation level or base-rate level, whichever is lower.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "11.      Any safeguard measures shall apply for a period of two years, which may be extended by a further period of up to two years in accordance with Article 9.9 of the ITA, provided that the relevant conditions justifying that extension are met.’", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "6         Article 3 of that decision is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "‘1.      Pending its entry into force, the ITA shall be applied on a provisional basis between the Union, of the one part, and one or more of the Signatory Mercosur States, of the other part, in accordance with Article 23.3 thereof, as from the first day of the second month following the date on which that Signatory Mercosur State or those Signatory Mercosur States, as the case may be, have notified the Union of the completion of their respective internal procedures necessary for the provisional application of the ITA and confirm their agreement to apply the ITA on a provisional basis.", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "2.      The date from which the ITA is to be applied on a provisional basis shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union .’", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "The ITA", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "7         Chapter 6 of the ITA, headed ‘Sanitary and phytosanitary measures’, comprises, inter alia, Articles 6.1, 6.4, 6.6 and 6.14.", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "8         Article 6.1 of that agreement, headed ‘Objectives’, provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "‘The objectives of this Chapter are to:", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "(a)      protect human, animal or plant life or health in the territory of the Parties while facilitating trade between the Parties in so far as sanitary and phytosanitary [(SPS)] measures are concerned;", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "(b)      establish cooperation on the implementation of [the Agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures contained in Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO), approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 40) (“the SPS Agreement”)];", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "9         Article 6.4 of that agreement, headed ‘Rights and obligations’, provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "‘The Parties affirm their rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement. Nothing in this Chapter shall affect the rights and obligations of each Party under the SPS Agreement’.", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "10       Article 6.6 of that agreement, headed ‘General obligations’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "‘Products exported from a Party shall meet the applicable SPS requirements of the importing Party.’", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "11       Article 6.14 of the ITA, headed ‘Emergency measures’, states, in paragraphs 2 and 4 thereof:", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "‘2.      The importing Party may, in the event of serious risks to human, animal or plant life or health, adopt emergency measures against such risks.", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "4.      Measures referred to in paragraph 2 may be adopted without prior notification pursuant to Article 6.12. The Party adopting emergency measures shall notify the other Party as soon as possible of the adoption of these measures and, in any case, no later than 48 (forty-eight) hours thereafter’.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "12       Chapter 9 of that agreement, headed ‘Bilateral safeguard measures’, comprises, inter alia, Article 9.3, contained in Section C, and Article 9.15, contained in Section F.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "13       Article 9.3 of that agreement, headed ‘Application of bilateral safeguard measures’, provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "‘1.      Without prejudice to the rights and obligations referred to in Chapter 8, a Party may, in exceptional circumstances, for goods other than vehicles classified under HS headings 8703 and 8704 [of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System established by the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, done at Brussels on 14 June 1983, within the framework of the World Customs Organization (WCO), and approved, with its Protocol of Amendment of 24 June 1986, on behalf of the European Economic Community, by Council Decision 87/369/EEC of 7 April 1987 (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 1)], apply bilateral safeguard measures under the conditions established in this Section if, after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, imports from the other Party of a product under preferential terms have increased in such quantities, absolute or relative to domestic production or consumption and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to its domestic industry of the like or directly competitive products.", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "2.      For goods listed in paragraph 1, bilateral safeguard measures shall be applied only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury or the threat of serious injury.", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "3.      Bilateral safeguard measures shall be applied following an investigation by the competent investigating authorities of the importing Party under the procedures established in this Chapter’.", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "14       Article 9.15 of that agreement, headed ‘Provisional safeguard measures’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "‘In critical circumstances where delay may cause damage which would be difficult to repair, a Party, after due notification, may take a provisional safeguard measure pursuant to a preliminary determination that there is clear evidence that imports under preferential terms have increased and that such imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury. …’", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "15       Article 23.3 of the ITA, headed ‘Application before entry into force’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "‘This Agreement may be provisionally applied. Such provisional application may take place between, on the one part, the European Union and, on the other part, one or more of the Signatory Mercosur States in accordance with their respective internal procedures’.", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "Background to the dispute", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "16       According to the application for interim measures, negotiations with a view to concluding an EU-Mercosur agreement began in 1999. On 13 September 1999, the Council adopted negotiating directives and authorised the Commission to open negotiations with a view to concluding an ‘interregional association agreement’ between the European Union and Mercosur, intended to replace the framework agreement approved by Council Decision of 22 March 1999 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the interregional framework cooperation agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Southern Common Market and its Party States, of the other part (OJ 1999 L 112, p. 65). Those negotiating directives authorised the Commission to negotiate a single association agreement which was to include both a trade part and a political dialogue and cooperation part. Acting on the basis of that authorisation, the Commission started negotiations.", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "17       According to the application for interim measures, those negotiations led to the conclusion of a trade agreement between the European Union and Mercosur on 28 June 2019. That agreement included, inter alia, provisions on trade in goods. The political part of the association agreement was negotiated by the European External Action Service and finalised on 18 June 2020. The negotiations were concluded on 6 December 2024.", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "18       It is also apparent from the application for interim measures that, on 3 September 2025, the Commission sent the Council, on the one hand, two proposals relating to the signing and conclusion of the EMPA, and, on the other, two further proposals relating to the signing and conclusion of the ITA. According to that application, the Commission, at the same time, proposed including the decision on the provisional application of the interim trade agreement only in the draft decision on the conclusion of the agreement, and not in the decision on the signing of the agreement.", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "19       The Commission thus divided the association agreement with Mercosur into two separate agreements, namely the EMPA and the ITA, with the latter being limited to trade matters and containing, in essence, the same obligations as those stemming from the trade part of the EMPA.", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "20       That division enabled the ITA to be concluded by the Council on the basis of the Union’s exclusive competence in the field of the common commercial policy, after obtaining the consent of the Parliament. By contrast, the EMPA was presented as a mixed agreement and required the consent of the Parliament as well as ratification by all 27 Member States before the Council could adopt the decision on its conclusion.", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "21       It is also apparent from the application for interim measures that, on 9 January 2026, despite the opposition of Ireland, the French Republic, Hungary, the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Poland, and the abstention of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Council adopted the decision at issue, by which it authorised the signing of the ITA and provided for its provisional application. That decision allows the ITA to be applied even before its definitive entry into force, with the provisions of the ITA also forming part of the EMPA. It is envisaged that, once the EMPA has been concluded by all parties, it will replace the ITA, which will then cease to be in force as regards the provisions on trade.", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "22       On 19 January 2026, the Council requested the Parliament’s consent to the conclusion of the ITA and the EMPA.", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "23       On 21 January 2026, the Parliament adopted a resolution requesting an opinion from the Court on the compatibility of the ITA and the EMPA with the Treaties.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "24       According to the Republic of Poland, on 27 February 2026, the President of the Commission announced that, following the ratification of the ‘EU-Mercosur Agreement’ by the Argentine Republic and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, and in view of the expected ratification of that agreement by the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Republic of Paraguay, ‘the Commission [would] now proceed with provisional application [of that agreement]’.", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "25       Since 1 May 2026, the ITA has been applied on a provisional basis.", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "Procedure before the Court and forms of order sought", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "26       By decisions of the Vice-President of the Court of 8, 17 and 19 June 2026, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission were, respectively, granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council.", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "27       In accordance with Article 160(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the Council lodged written observations on 12 June 2026.", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "28       The Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Finland and the Commission lodged their statements in intervention on 1 and 3 July 2026, respectively. By letter of 26 June 2026, the Kingdom of the Netherlands opted not to lodge written observations.", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "29       The Republic of Poland claims that the Court should order the suspension of operation of the decision at issue pending delivery of the judgment concluding the main proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "30       The Council, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Finland and the Commission, contends that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "–        dismiss the application to suspend the operation of the decision at issue; and", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "–        order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "The application for interim measures", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "31       As a preliminary observation, it should be recalled that, in accordance with Article 160(3) of the Rules of Procedure, applications to suspend the operation of a measure adopted by an institution and for other interim measures provided for in Articles 278 and 279 TFEU are to state the subject matter of the proceedings, the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for.", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "32       In accordance with settled case-law, the judge hearing an application for interim measures may order the suspension of operation of an act, or other interim measures, if it is established that such an order is justified, prima facie, in fact and in law and that it is urgent in so far as, in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the interests of the party making the application, it must be made and produce its effects before a decision is reached in the main action. The judge hearing the application for interim measures must also, where appropriate, weigh up the interests involved. Those conditions are cumulative, so that an application for interim measures must be dismissed if any one of them is not satisfied (order of the Vice-President of the Court of 11 April 2024, Vivendi v Commission , C‑90/24 P(R), EU:C:2024:318, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "33       In the context of the examination of those conditions, the judge hearing the application for interim measures has a wide discretion and is free to determine, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the manner and order in which those various conditions are to be examined, there being no rule of EU law imposing a pre-established scheme of analysis within which the need to order interim measures must be assessed (order of the Vice-President of the Court of 13 April 2021, Lithuania v Parliament and Council , C‑541/20 R, EU:C:2021:264, paragraph 13 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "34       In the present case, it is first necessary to ascertain whether the condition relating to urgency is satisfied.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "Arguments", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "35       In the first place, the Republic of Poland submits that the circumstances in which the decision at issue was adopted, in particular the flagrant infringements of the Treaties committed at that time, justify suspending the operation of that decision until a judgment is delivered concluding the main proceedings. According to the Republic of Poland, the EU institutions, which are seeking to implement the ITA as quickly as possible, acted in breach of the Treaties, abused their powers, failed to observe the principle of sincere cooperation, and prioritised selective economic interests over compliance with the Treaties and the fundamental principles of the European Union. Authorising the application of the ITA could therefore encourage them to take further similar action in the future.", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "36       In the second place, the Republic of Poland submits that suspending the operation of the decision at issue is also justified by the fact that that decision authorises the provisional application of the ITA, which broadens the scope for placing agricultural products from Mercosur countries on the EU market. However, that agreement does not contain any ‘mirror’ clauses requiring farmers in Mercosur countries to comply with the same production standards – in particular as regards the environment, health or animal welfare – as those applicable to EU producers.", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "37       That Member State points, in particular, to the very intensive use of plant protection products in agriculture in Mercosur countries, and the fact that a large number of those products contain active substances that have been withdrawn from the EU market due to the danger they pose to human and animal life and health and to the environment. Consequently, as soon as the ITA begins to apply, imported agricultural products containing residues of active substances not authorised in the European Union could appear on the EU market.", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "38       According to the Republic of Poland, there is therefore no doubt that agricultural products from Mercosur countries may pose a genuine risk to human and animal life or health, and that their production places unacceptable pressure on the environment in the European Union. If those active substances did not pose a genuine and serious threat, the Commission would not have withdrawn them from the EU market.", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "39       In addition, that Member State contends that the damage alleged is serious and irreparable. Once placed on the EU market, agricultural products containing harmful active substances will have adverse effects on human and animal health and on the environment which cannot be subsequently reversed.", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "40       In the third place, the Republic of Poland claims that the provisional application of the ITA will cause serious and irreversible damage in the form of a fall in farmers’ incomes and disruption to the functioning of the market for various agricultural products, by allowing cheaper products grown or manufactured using chemicals prohibited in the European Union to be placed on that market.", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "41       That Member State argues that agricultural producers in Mercosur countries are able to use plant protection products which are harmful to humans, animals and the environment, but which are cheaper and more effective. They are thereby able to achieve higher yields at lower cost, enabling them to offer their products at lower prices. Those products constitute unfair competition for products of EU farmers, thereby reducing their income and jeopardising the stabilisation of the internal market and security of supply.", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "42       According to the Republic of Poland, a fall in EU farmers’ incomes, disruption to the functioning of the markets for various agricultural products, the displacement of agricultural products that are healthier and higher-quality – albeit more expensive because they are produced in compliance with the strict rules and requirements laid down by EU law – in favour of products that are cheaper but contain residues of chemicals prohibited in the European Union are liable to cause serious and irreparable damage.", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "43       In particular, it will not be possible to make good the damage caused by agricultural holdings becoming insolvent due to the massive influx of cheaper products from Mercosur countries. Restoring the proper functioning of the agricultural markets, disrupted by the influx of those products, could take many years and jeopardise food security in the European Union.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "44       The Council disputes those arguments. According to the Council, the Republic of Poland has failed to establish that the application of the decision at issue until delivery of the judgment concluding the proceedings in Case C‑460/26 is liable to cause serious and irreparable damage that is foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability, and that the condition relating to urgency is satisfied.", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "45       The Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Finland and the Commission also consider that the condition relating to urgency is not satisfied.", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "46       According to settled case-law, the purpose of the procedure for interim relief is to guarantee the full effectiveness of the future final decision, in order to ensure that there is no lacuna in the legal protection afforded by the Court. For the purpose of attaining that objective, urgency must be assessed in the light of the need for an interlocutory order in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party seeking the interim protection. It is for that party to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage of that nature. In order to establish the existence of serious and irreparable damage, it is not necessary for the occurrence of the damage to be demonstrated with absolute certainty. It is sufficient to show that damage is foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability (order of the Vice-President of the Court of 23 July 2025, Commission v Ortis , C‑54/25 P-R, EU:C:2025:590, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "47       In accordance with that case-law, it remains for the party seeking an interim measure to set forth and establish the likelihood of serious and irreparable damage occurring. In that regard, the judge hearing the application for interim measures must have specific and precise information, supported by detailed documents enabling an assessment to be made of the specific consequences likely to result if the measures sought were not granted (see, to that effect, order of the Vice-President of the Court of 13 April 2021, Lithuania v Parliament and Council , C‑541/20 R, EU:C:2021:264, paragraphs 19 and 20 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "48       It follows that, in the present case, it is for the Republic of Poland to establish that the application of the decision at issue during the period between the signature of the present order and the delivery of the judgment concluding the proceedings in Case C‑460/26 is such as to result in serious and irreparable damage that is foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability.", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "49       In the first place, as is apparent from the application for interim measures, that Member State relies on an infringement of the Treaties, an abuse of power and a failure to observe the principle of sincere cooperation in order to claim that the decision at issue is vitiated by illegality and that allowing the ITA to be applied, even on a provisional basis, could encourage the EU institutions to engage in ‘further similar action’ in the future.", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "50       In that regard, in so far as the Republic of Poland appears to justify the urgency on the grounds that the decision at issue is unlawful, it should be noted that such a circumstance, even if established, is not, in itself, sufficient to demonstrate the risk of serious and irreparable damage.", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "51       In accordance with settled case-law, although the breach by an act of the European Union of a higher-ranking legal rule may affect the validity of that act, in principle, the possible unlawfulness of that act cannot, in itself, suffice to establish the seriousness and irreparable nature of any damage (order of the Vice-President of the Court of 27 February 2018, Czech Republic v Parliament and Council , C‑482/17 R, EU:C:2018:119, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "52       Moreover, it is not sufficient to allege, in the abstract, an infringement of the provisions of the Treaties and of the fundamental principles of the European Union, in this case, in particular, the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, for the purpose of establishing that the harm which could result would necessarily be irreparable (see, to that effect, order of the Vice-President of the Court of 13 April 2021, Lithuania v Parliament and Council , C‑541/20 R, EU:C:2021:264, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "53       The Republic of Poland merely argues, in general and abstract terms, that the provisional application of the ITA means that the EU institutions are prioritising selective economic interests to the detriment of compliance with the Treaties and the fundamental principles of the European Union, without providing any concrete evidence to establish the likelihood and imminence of serious and irreparable damage.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "54       In any event, the question whether the adoption of the decision at issue was indeed vitiated by illegality resulting from an infringement of the Treaties, an abuse of power or a failure to observe the principle of sincere cooperation can be resolved by the Court only in the context of the proceedings relating to the action specifically seeking the annulment of that decision.", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "55       As regards, in particular, the Republic of Poland’s argument that the EU institutions would be ‘encouraged’ to commit infringements of the Treaties in the future given that they could provisionally apply legal acts that are vitiated by illegality until such time as a judgment annuls them, suffice it to state that that argument consists in relying on purely hypothetical damage and that, therefore, such damage cannot, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 47 above, justify granting the suspension of operation sought.", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "56       In the second place, in order to establish the urgency of suspending the operation of the decision at issue, the Republic of Poland relies on the damage resulting from the effects of that decision on the economic and social situation of EU farmers, on the functioning of the internal market, on human and animal health, and on the environment in the European Union.", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "57       In that regard, it should be recalled that, in accordance with settled case-law, those various forms of damage may be relied on by the Republic of Poland with a view to obtaining interim measures, since the Member States are responsible for the interests which are regarded as general interests at national level and may defend them in proceedings for interim measures (see, to that effect, orders of the Vice-President of the Court of 3 June 2022, Bulgaria v Parliament and Council , C‑545/20 R, EU:C:2022:445, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited, and of 18 September 2023, Poland v Parliament and Council , C‑445/23 R, EU:C:2023:703, paragraph 30).", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "58       Accordingly, it is necessary to determine whether the evidence adduced by the Republic of Poland establishes, first, that the occurrence of one or more of those forms of damage is foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability and, second, that those forms of damage are serious and irreparable.", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "59       In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the procedure for interim relief is not designed to establish the truth of complex facts that are very much in dispute. The judge hearing an application for interim measures does not have the means necessary in order to carry out such examinations and in numerous instances it would be difficult for it to manage to do so in good time (order of 20 November 2017, Commission v Poland , C‑441/17 R, EU:C:2017:877, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "60       In the present case, it is apparent from the application for interim measures that the Republic of Poland considers that the provisional application of the ITA, authorised by the decision at issue, allows agricultural products from Mercosur countries containing harmful substances liable to have irreversible adverse effects on human and animal life or health and the environment to be placed on the EU market. The Republic of Poland states, inter alia, that the ITA does not contain any ‘mirror’ clauses requiring farmers in Mercosur countries to comply with the same production standards – in particular as regards the environment or health or animal welfare – as those applicable to EU farmers.", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "61       However, the mere possibility that the ITA might allow imports into the European Union of products from Mercosur countries which may contain residues of active substances the use of which is not authorised in the European Union due to possible risks to human and animal health and to the environment is not sufficient to establish that serious and irreparable harm will occur.", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "62       Moreover, and most importantly, it must be stated that the absence of ‘mirror clauses’ in the ITA does not mean that EU sanitary and phytosanitary measures, food safety regulations, and health and environmental standards do not apply to products imported from Mercosur countries under the ITA.", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "63       As the Council pointed out in its written observations, supported by the Commission, imported agricultural products are subject to phytosanitary and food safety regulations similar to those applicable to products manufactured in the European Union. In that regard, the European Union has adopted legislation, applicable throughout the internal market, in order to ensure high food and health standards for agricultural products, in particular as regards the presence of harmful substances or residues from the use of fertilisers or plant protection products. Those standards apply equally to agricultural products manufactured in the European Union and to imported products.", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "64       More specifically, as is apparent from the Council’s written observations, Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on veterinary medicinal products and repealing Directive 2001/82/EC (OJ 2019 L 4, p. 43), which prohibits the use of antimicrobial medicinal products in animals for the purpose of promoting growth or increasing yield, applies to EU operators and operators in third countries exporting to the European Union. In addition, in the case of pesticide residues in agricultural products or foodstuffs, the same maximum limits apply to products manufactured in the European Union and to imported products, and the same evaluation procedure is followed for applications for the establishment of maximum residue limits for products manufactured in the European Union and for imported products.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "65       In accordance with Article 6.4 of the ITA, contained in Chapter 6 thereof, nothing in that chapter affects the rights and obligations relating to compliance with the sanitary and phytosanitary rules provided for by the SPS Agreement. In that regard, it should be noted, in particular, that Article 6.6(1) of the ITA expressly provides that ‘products exported from a Party shall meet the applicable SPS requirements of the importing Party’. Thus, the international agreements concluded by the European Union, in particular the SPS Agreement, guarantee the European Union the right to impose standards on imported food products and allow it to impose appropriate sanitary and phytosanitary measures and environmental measures.", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "66       It follows that the European Union has the power to impose measures preventing agricultural products which do not comply with the sanitary, phytosanitary and environmental standards in force from entering the territory of the European Union.", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "67       It should also be added that, in accordance with Article 6.14(2) of the ITA, the importing Party may, in the event of serious risks to human, animal or plant life or health, adopt emergency measures against such risks.", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "68       In any event, it should also be noted that, even before the adoption of the decision at issue, EU legislation did not prohibit imports of products, including agricultural products, from Mercosur countries, provided that those products complied with the EU rules applicable to imported products. The ITA provides only for a limited increase in tariff quotas, together with a reduction in customs duties, and reduces non-tariff barriers to trade, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises. Therefore, the ITA could at most lead to a quantitative increase in certain imports. However, the Republic of Poland does not explain how any increase in imports already authorised to date would be such as to give rise to a risk of serious and irreversible damage.", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "69       Consequently, the Republic of Poland has not succeeded in demonstrating the existence of a risk, foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability, of serious and irreparable damage, resulting from the effects of the decision at issue on human and animal life or health and on the environment in the European Union, as a result of imports of products from Mercosur countries that may contain residues of active substances the use of which is not authorised in the European Union.", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "70       In the third place, the Republic of Poland claims that the provisional application of the ITA will cause serious and irreversible damage in the form of a fall in farmers’ incomes and disruption to the functioning of the market for various agricultural products, by allowing cheaper products grown or manufactured using chemicals prohibited in the European Union to be placed on that market, which would cause economic operators engaged in agricultural activities to become insolvent.", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "71       In that regard, it should be borne in mind that damage of a pecuniary nature cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, be regarded as irreparable, since, as a general rule, pecuniary compensation is capable of restoring the aggrieved person to the situation that prevailed before that person suffered the damage. Any such damage could, in particular, be remedied by the applicant’s bringing an action for compensation on the basis of Articles 268 and 340 TFEU (order of the Vice-President of the Court of 13 April 2021, Lithuania v Parliament and Council , C‑541/20 R, EU:C:2021:264, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "72       The mere fact that farmers in the European Union may be faced with competition from products imported from Mercosur countries, even if proved, cannot suffice to show, in the absence of more precise information concerning those farmers’ financial situation and an analysis of the tariff quotas established by the ITA, that those farmers would be unable to withstand that competition and would therefore be forced to cease their activities (see, by analogy, orders of the Vice-President of the Court of 3 June 2022, Bulgaria v Parliament and Council , C‑545/20 R, EU:C:2022:445, paragraph 51, and of 18 September 2023, Poland v Parliament and Council , C‑445/23 R, EU:C:2023:703, paragraph 39).", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "73       Similarly, the Republic of Poland’s general and abstract claims that the provisional application of the ITA would lead to ‘unfair competition’ for agricultural products produced in the European Union, reducing the incomes of EU farmers and jeopardising the stabilisation of the internal market and security of supply, are not accompanied by any evidence capable of establishing that there is a risk, foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability, of imminent serious and irreparable damage.", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "74       In that regard, it should be emphasised that Article 2(1) of the decision at issue, read in the light of recital 3 thereof, provides that, until the adoption and entry into force of a specific Union legislative act implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the EMPA and of the ITA for agricultural products, the Commission may, by means of implementing regulations, adopt bilateral safeguard measures that are consistent with the conditions set out in Chapter 9 of the ITA and in that decision. To that end, that decision requires the Commission closely to monitor the market for agricultural products, which is a standing feature of its activities in the agricultural sector.", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "75       In particular, Article 2(3) of the decision at issue, read in conjunction with recital 5 thereof, requires the Commission to initiate without delay an investigation upon the request of one or more Member States or of any legal person or association acting on behalf of the Union industry active in the sector concerned, where there is sufficient prima facie evidence, in particular obtained by means of the close monitoring of the market referred to in the preceding paragraph of the present order, of serious injury or the threat of serious injury to the Union industry or to sensitive agricultural products, including in cases where such injury or threat thereof is geographically concentrated in one or more Member States.", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "76       Similarly, Article 2(7) of that decision confers on the Commission the power to impose without delay or hesitation, and in the case of sensitive agricultural products at the latest within 21 days of receiving a request as referred to in Article 2(3), provisional bilateral safeguard measures to avert any injury to the Union industry that would be difficult to repair, including where such injury is geographically concentrated in one or more Member States.", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "77       Lastly, it should be noted that, in accordance with Article 2(9) of that decision, a safeguard measure may be imposed where a product originating in a Mercosur State is imported into the Union in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to Union production or consumption, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the Union industry, including where such injury or threat thereof is geographically concentrated in one or more Member States. Such a measure may be taken provided that the increase in imports is the result of obligations incurred under the ITA, including of the reduction or elimination of the customs duties on that product. According to Article 2(10) of that decision, a safeguard measure may take the form of a temporary suspension of the schedule of tariff reduction for the relevant product, or a reduction of the tariff preference back to the most-favoured-nation level or base-rate level, whichever is lower.", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "78       It follows from the foregoing that the decision at issue confers on the Commission powers enabling it to prevent the occurrence of serious and irreparable damage resulting from risks to food security and from the deterioration in the economic and social situation of EU farmers.", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "79       Moreover, the Republic of Poland has not provided the evidence necessary to establish with sufficient probability that the decision at issue, in itself, would, prior to delivery of the judgment concluding the proceedings in Case C‑460/26, lead to a significant distortion of fair competition on the internal market for agricultural products, liable to cause EU farmers to become insolvent, or, a fortiori, to assess the extent of the damage that could be expected to occur before delivery of that judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "80       The Republic of Poland merely asserts, in abstract terms, that there is a link between the ITA and the deterioration in the economic and social situation of EU farmers. The information provided by that Member State does not make it possible to determine whether the alleged changes in the market for agricultural products are due to the provisional application of the ITA or to other market factors, in particular fluctuations in energy prices, high fertiliser costs, competition from third countries other than Mercosur countries, or customer preferences.", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "81       Consequently, suspension of operation of the decision at issue cannot, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 47 of the present order, be granted, since the Republic of Poland has not sufficiently demonstrated that the provisional application of the ITA pending delivery of the judgment concluding the proceedings in Case C‑460/26 is liable to cause serious and irreparable damage that is foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability.", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "82       It follows that that Member State has not demonstrated the urgency that warrants suspending the operation of the decision at issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "83       Having regard to the fact that the conditions for the grant of interim measures are cumulative, the application for interim measures must therefore be dismissed, without it being necessary to examine the conditions relating to a prima facie case and the weighing of the competing interests.", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "84       In accordance with Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, a decision as to costs is to be given in the judgment or order which closes the proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Vice-President of the Court hereby orders:", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "1.       The application for interim measures is dismissed.", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "2.       The costs are reserved.", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "[Signatures]", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "*       Language of the case: Polish.", "paragraph_id": "para_160" } ], "word_count": 7852, "cites": [ "C-460/26", "C-90/24", "C-541/20", "C-54/25", "C-482/17", "C-545/20", "C-445/23", "C-441/17" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "c7b18c63e671b41ab19dd7c8377bb10b5cd2cdd75abfb68d93bc53c36c07306b", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62026CO0460", "fetched_at": "2026-10-06T12:33:26.636+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-460-26-r", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-460-26-r", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-460-26-r", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-460-26-r", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "c7b18c63e671b41ab19dd7c8377bb10b5cd2cdd75abfb68d93bc53c36c07306b", "recomputed_sha256": "c7b18c63e671b41ab19dd7c8377bb10b5cd2cdd75abfb68d93bc53c36c07306b", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-08T01:47:23.070Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:f462af400f86cd8ef13bd36771abd3614772f21d97eb076456ed55f325375f77", "version": "legal-2026-10-07", "expires": "2026-10-09T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-07+legal-2026-10-07+2026-10-07T16:38:30", "content_hash": "sha256:f462af400f86cd8ef13bd36771abd3614772f21d97eb076456ed55f325375f77", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-08T02:47:23.702Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-460-26-r", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }