The European Parliament today had a preliminary chance to stop the EU Commission’s plan to rebrand produce from occupied Western Sahara as originating from Moroccan “regions”. MEPs failed to seize that opportunity, allowing the Commission’s controversial circumvention of earlier rulings by the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) to advance toward a full parliamentary and Council vote.

The vote concerned whether Parliament would object to the Commission’s proposed amendment to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2429 on origin labelling for fruit and vegetables from Western Sahara. Specifically, the Commission in October 2025 proposed using the administrative region names that Morocco has unilaterally imposed on the territory over which it has no sovereignty: Laayoune-Sakia El Hamra and Dakhla-Oued Eddahab. These territorial divisions that are not recognised by the UN, the EU or the EU Court of Justice.

This step comes despite a clear EU Court of Justice ruling that products from Western Sahara must be labelled as originating from Western Sahara and cannot be described using Moroccan territorial designations. 

The proposals by the EPP and PfE were only rejected with the smallest possible minority. Had one (!) more parliamentarian supported the EPP proposal, the delegated regulation would have been rejected. 360 votes were needed for the motion to pass. 

However, only 359 voted in favour of the motion, with 188 objections and 76 abstentions. 

On the PfE motion there were 465 objections, 157 in favour, 20 abstentions.

“A majority of MEPs have today chosen to side with Morocco over EU consumers, the EU Court and the Saharawi people. By allowing Morocco to reshape how the EU labels products, Parliament has opened the door to a dangerous precedent: a third country influencing the EU’s internal legal framework. This is a worrying day for consumer rights, for the rule of law, and for the people of Western Sahara,” says Sara Eyckmans from Western Sahara Resource Watch.

During last week’s meeting of the Parliament’s Agriculture Committee, the Commission openly admitted that the concept of a “region of origin” was “the result of negotiations with Morocco”, and could provide no legal basis for departing from established CJEU case law and EU marketing standards. MEPs from across the political spectrum strongly criticised the proposal.

Two objections were tabled - one by the EPP and one by PfE - arguing that the Commission’s proposal violated EU law, misled consumers, and originated from negotiations with Morocco rather than legal necessity.

Although the objections gathered support, the required majority was not reached. The outcome does not negate the substantive concerns raised during the debate in the AGRI-committee:

• CJEU case law requires that products from Western Sahara be labelled “Western Sahara”, excluding any reference to Morocco or its regions. It is therefore doubtful that the Commission’s derogation is compatible with the Court’s jurisprudence.
• The EU has repeatedly faced annulments of its EU–Morocco measures by the CJEU. Adopting a delegated act that appears to contradict established rulings risks further litigation.
• The Commission admitted that the “region of origin” terminology came from negotiations with Morocco, raising questions about third-country influence on internal EU rules.
• Replacing the truthful indication “Western Sahara” with unfamiliar names (that also exist in other countries) obscures origin, misleads consumers, and creates the false impression of Moroccan sovereignty.

While Parliament did not block the delegated act, the debate revealed unprecedented cross-party concern about the proposal’s legality and its compliance with CJEU rulings. The decision is therefore unlikely to be the end of the matter - either institutionally or legally.