EU Bars Chinese Firms from State Medical Equipment Contracts – Here’s What to Know

Updated: June 20, 2025

By Dr. Maria Schultz, International Trade Analyst
LinkedIn Profile

Key Takeaways

• Scope of the Ban: China-based companies are excluded from EU public tenders for medical devices valued over €5 million, and any approved bid must cap Chinese-made content at 50 percent.
• Legal Basis: First application of the EU’s International Procurement Instrument (IPI), under Regulation (EU) 2022/1031.
• Market Impact: Affects roughly 60 percent of total procurement value, though only 4 percent by number of tenders, in a market worth over €60 billion annually within the EU.
• Next Steps: The Commission remains open to dialogue, but has signaled that further measures could follow if China does not ease barriers for European suppliers.

What Happened?

On June 19, 2025, the European Commission formally adopted an implementing regulation prohibiting companies headquartered in the People’s Republic of China from participating in EU public tenders for medical devices exceeding €5 million. The measure simultaneously limits the share of Chinese-origin content in successful bids to no more than 50 percent, unless no viable alternatives exist.

“These measures aim to level the playing field for EU businesses,” said Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič in the official press release. “We remain committed to dialogue with China to resolve these issues.” policy.trade.ec.europa.eureuters.com

This marks the first enforcement of the IPI, a tool designed to secure reciprocal market access after investigations revealed that China’s procurement practices systematically disadvantage EU firms.

Why It Matters

1. Economic Stakes
   • The EU medical device sector is a cornerstone of European healthcare, with public procurement contracts amounting to over €60 billion annually reuters.com.
   • While high-value contracts represent only 4 percent of tenders by count, they comprise approximately 60 percent of total value, underscoring the strategic importance of this ban.
2. Geopolitical Context
   • Comes amid a broader “de-risking” strategy: EU tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, anti-dumping duties on solar panels, and restrictions on rare earth exports.
   • Reflects deepening trade tensions ahead of the EU-China summit scheduled for July 24–25, 2025, in Beijing, where economic grievances loom large ft.com.
3. Reciprocity Principle
   • The IPI’s objective is to incentivize China to dismantle discriminatory barriers that bar EU suppliers from Chinese public procurement.
   • According to the Commission’s January report, nearly 90 percent of Chinese public tenders for medical devices imposed exclusionary measures on EU companies policy.trade.ec.europa.eu.

Expert Analysis

“This is a pivotal moment in EU-China trade relations,” notes Dr. Elena Spinei, Associate Professor of International Trade Law at Maastricht University. “By using the IPI, the EU sends a signal that market openness must be mutual, especially in critical sectors like healthcare.”

Dr. Spinei highlights that while the immediate economic impact on Chinese producers may be limited—given the threshold—this regulatory move raises the strategic cost of market discrimination.

What’s Next?

• Monitoring & Enforcement: The Commission will review the measure’s effectiveness and compliance by member states.
• Potential Escalation: If China fails to reciprocate, further IPI measures could extend to other sectors, such as pharmaceuticals or medical software.
• Upcoming Dialogue: EU Trade Commissioner Šefčovič plans technical talks with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao later this month, aiming to de-escalate tensions ft.com.

Daily Digest

• June 14, 2025: IPI investigation report published, finding “serious and recurrent impairment” of EU access to China’s medical device market policy.trade.ec.europa.eu.
• April 24, 2024: Commission launches first IPI investigation into China’s public procurement for medical devices.
• July 24–25, 2025: EU-China summit in Beijing, now under a cloud of trade disputes.

Fact-Check