China has sharply criticized the European Union’s investigation into JD.com’s €2.2 billion bid for German electronics retailer Ceconomy, describing the review as an overreach of jurisdiction and an abuse of the bloc’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation.
China’s Ministry of Justice prohibited organizations and individuals from cooperating with the EU inquiry. The instruction moves the dispute beyond public criticism by directly restricting the flow of information that European investigators may seek from parties under Chinese jurisdiction.
The European Commission opened its investigation in May to determine whether foreign financial support could distort competition in the proposed acquisition. The probe is a regulatory review, not a finding that JD.com received an unfair subsidy or that the transaction violated EU law.
The process could delay completion of the transaction while the Commission works toward an October 2 decision deadline. Possible outcomes depend on the evidence and procedure, so neither approval, remedies nor prohibition should be treated as predetermined.
Ceconomy operates more than 1,000 consumer-electronics stores across Europe under the MediaMarkt and Saturn brands. Its scale makes the takeover more than a bilateral corporate deal: it tests how the EU’s newer subsidy-screening powers apply to a Chinese buyer of a large European retail network.
Beijing’s intervention follows domestic rules designed to counter what China calls unlawful extraterritorial jurisdiction. The order signals that companies may face conflicting legal demands when one authority requests cooperation and another forbids it.
The clash comes amid wider tensions between Brussels and Beijing, including European scrutiny of Chinese ecommerce platforms and efforts to diversify supply chains. It may increase compliance uncertainty for future Chinese investment in Europe even if the Ceconomy transaction ultimately proceeds.
Some analysts interpret China’s resistance as an attempt to weaken cohesion in European trade policy by increasing pressure on exposed member states. That is an analytical judgment, not a confirmed government objective; the immediate facts are the EU investigation, China’s non-cooperation order and the pending October deadline.
