Commission européenne, DG COMP MERGER REGISTRY, 1049 Bruxelles, BELGIQUE  
Europese Commissie, DG COMP MERGER REGISTRY, 1049 Brussel,   BELGIË  
 
Tel: +32 229- 91111. Fax: +32 229 -64301. E -mail: COMP -MERGER -REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu.  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION  
 
 
 
 
 
Brussels,  13.12.2018  
C(2018)  8944 final  
  
 
 
To the notifying party 
 
 
 
 
Subject : Case M. 9139 -  Haier / Candy  
Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council 
Regulation No 139/20041 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the 
European Economic Area2 
Dear Sir or Madam,  
(1) On 8 November 2018, the European Commission received a notification of a 
proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 139/2004  by which Haier Europe Appliances Holding B.V  (the 
Netherlands), belonging to the Haier Group Corporat ion ( "Haier", China) 
acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control 
of the whole of Candy S.p.A. ("Candy", Ital y) by way of purchase of shares3 
(Haier is hereinafter referred to as the “ Notifying  Party” and together, Haier  and 
Candy  are hereinafter referred to as the “ Parties ”). 
1. THE PARTIES  
(2) Haier is a Chinese- based manufacturer and supplier of consumer electronics and 
domestic appliances worldwide. Its products are marketed through several main 
                                                 
1  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ' Merger Regulation '). With effect from 1 December 2009,  the Treaty on 
the Functioning of the European Union ( 'TFEU ') has introduced certain changes, such as the 
replacement of  'Community ' by 'Union ' and 'common market ' by 'internal market '. The terminology of 
the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.  
2  OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 (the 'EEA Agreement').  
3  Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 418,  19.11.2018 , p. 8. PUBLIC VERSION  In the publish ed version of this decision, som e 
information has been omitted pursuant to Article 
17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004  
concerning non -disclosure of business secrets and 
other confidential information. The omissions are 
shown thus […]. Where possible the information 
omitted has been replaced by ranges of figures or a 
general description.  
 
2 brands, including "Haier", " Casarte", "GE Appliances", "Fisher & Paykel", 
"AQUA" and "Leader".  
(3) Candy is an Italian -based manufacturer and supplier of domestic appliances 
worldwide. Its products are marketed through two main brands, "Candy" and 
"Hoover", and through national brands s uch as "Rosières" (France) and "Jinling" 
(China).  
2. THE OPERATION  
(4) The transaction consists in the acquisition of the entire share capital of Candy by 
Haier  (the ”Transaction ”). The Share Pur chase Agreement was signed on 
28 September 2018  between Haier Europe Appliances Holding B.V. (a 
subsidiary of Haier Group) and Candy S.p.A .  
3. EU DIMENSION  
(5) The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate world- wide turnover of 
more than EUR 5 000 million (Haier: 20 868.7 million, Candy […] ). Each of 
them has an EU -wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million (Haier: […] , 
Candy […]), but they do not achieve more than two- thirds of their aggregate 
EU-wide turnover within one and the same Member State. The notified 
operation therefore has an EU dimension within the meaning of  Article 1(2) of 
the Merger Regulation . 
4. RELEVANT MARKETS  
4.1. Product markets  
(6) The Transaction leads to horizontal overlaps in respect of a number of different 
categories of electric domestic appliances.  
(7) The Notifying Party submits that each category of major d omestic appliances 
('MDAs ') should constitute a separate product market due to the lack of demand 
side substitutability. More specifically, the  categories identified by the N otifying 
Party are: cooking appliances, hoods, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, 
microwave ovens, washing machines and tumble dryers.  
(8) The Notifying Party adds that some of the appliances could be further sub-
segmented, such as (i) cooking appliances into hobs and ovens ( these can be 
sold as separate products) or (ii) refrigerators into single door, double or 
multiple doors , combined fridge -freezer, (iii) microwave ovens into simple 
microwave or integrated microwave ovens, and (iv) washing machines into 
washers and washer -dryers.  
(9) The Notifying Party notes that practically all appliances can be free standing or 
built in,  but argues that these should not constitute separate product markets,  as 
there is a high degree of supply side substitutability between them and also some 
degree of demand side substitutability.  
 
3 (10) The Notifying Party further remarks that MDAs are developing into smart / 
connected devices, which could be a further differentiating factor but explains 
that connected devices represent only 2% of all MDAs at the m oment.  
(11) The Commission has previously  segmented MDAs according to type of 
appliance and  has also considered a further differentiation  between free standing 
and built -in appliances.4   
(12) There are no precedents discussing whether the MDA market or its subsegments 
should be further divided according to smart / connected devices. Respondents 
to the market investigation indicated in this respect that the technology and 
know -how was widely available and was rather simple for MDAs that any MDA 
competitor mas tered and was therefore not a distinctive feature that would 
justify further subsegmenting any type of MDA along this line.5 
(13) The Commission concludes that  for the purpose of this decision the exact 
definition of the relevant product market can be left open, as the Transaction 
does not give rise to competition concerns on the basis of any plausible 
definition of the relevant product market.  
4.2. Geographic markets  
(14) The Notifying Party argues that the relevant geographic market for the different 
categories of MDAs should be considered EEA -wide, because the same brands 
are marketed EEA -wide and production takes place centrally at a few locations 
irrespectively of where the product is going to be distributed. Many customers 
(retailers) are also active in several count ries and prices are broadly homogenous 
across the EEA.  
(15) Commission precedents, however, left open whether the geographic market for 
the different MDAs should be considered EEA wide or national.6  
(16) The Commission concludes that  for the purposes of this decision the exact 
definition of the relevant geographic market can be left open, as the Transaction 
does not give rise to competition concerns on the basis of any plausible 
definition of the relevant geographic  market.  
5. COMPETITIV E ASSESSMENT  
EEA 
(17) On an EEA -wide market for all MDAs, no affected markets arise  irrespective of 
the precise product market definition. Third party independent (Euromonitor) 
research ranks the parties number  8 and 9 respectively among competitors in 
Europe, with BSH (Bosch, Siemens, Neff and Gaggenau), Whirlpool and 
                                                 
4  See e.g. Cases M.7366  Whirlpool/Indesit, paras 10- 16 and M.2703 Merloni/GE/JV, paras 9 and 10.  
5  See replies to question  7 of the Commission  questionnaire to competitors and customers.  
6  See e.g. Cases M.7366  Whirlpool/Indesit, paras 22 -25. 

 
5 (25) Similarly, if a potential  market for built -in hobs  were to be considered , despite 
an HHI exceeding 150, the combined share remains below 25%, and other 
suppliers remain available. In particular, Whirlpool will remain the market 
leader ( [40-50]% market share), followed by Electrolux ( [10-20]%), Inter Ikea 
Systems ( [5-10]%), Franke Holding AG ( [5-10]%) and Arçelik AS ( [0-5]%).The 
Notifying Party will therefore continue to face competitive pressure from a 
number of competitors irrespective of the precise product market definition. 
Consistent with this assessment, although Haier could become the second largest 
player in cooking appliances and on the narrower market for hobs in Italy, 
respondents to the Commission's market investigation did not consider that the 
Transaction  would have a significant impact on Haier’s pre -existing  market 
share and that the merged entity would still constitute a minor player  on the 
market .9   
(26) The Notifying Party also estimated that post- merger, for both markets  – i.e. all 
cooking appliances  and built -in hobs  will be characterised by HHIs between 
1000 and 2000 with a delta below 250, which reflects a competitive market not 
notably impacted by the Transaction.  
(27) In addition, in relation to all cooking appliance, as well as to its narrower 
markets , the N otifying  Party argues that the Parties  are not close competitors as 
Haier targets the […]  segment while Candy is active in the […] .   
(28) Most respondents to the market investigation considered that both Parties are 
present in the ‘value for money’ part of the market, and some saw Haier as 
being present in the premium end. However, even if competition were seen as 
taking  place within the seg ments themselves ( 'value', 'core', 'premium' and 'super 
premium'), respondents considered that the segments nevertheless  exert 
competitive pressure on one  other.10 Therefore, that Haier might be seen as also 
being present in the premium end of the market would not, in itself preclude a 
conclusion that the  Parties are close compet itors.  
(29) Notwithstanding , such possibility, however,  respondents  to the market 
investigation do not generally  consider the Parties to be  close competitors as the 
Parties do not figure among each other’s top three competitors as identified  by 
market participants ; either for MDAs overall, for hobs  in Italy.11 
(30) Rather, the principal  competitors identified were Whirlpool, Electolux and BSH, 
as well as  Samsung and Beko. It was also noted during the market investigation  
that, a number of local manufacturers are also active in the cooking appliances 
segment  in Italy , beyond the international players12.  
                                                 
9  See replies to question  9 of the Commission  questionnaire to competitors and customers.  
10  See replies to question 6 of the Commission  questionnaire to competitors and customers.  
11  See replies to question  4 of the Commission  questionnaire to competitors and customers.  
12  See replies to question s 3 and 9 of the Commission  questionnaire to competitors and customers.  
 
6 (31) Third party reports13 submitted by the Parties analysing the competitive 
landscape reflect intense competition on the affected markets and see the 
rationale for the T ransaction as being for  Haier to gain a stronger foothold on 
the European market and compete more effectively against Whirlpool.  
(32) Respondents to the Commission’s market inve stigation shared the Parties’ view 
that the  landscape of the European MDA industry  is both highly competitive and  
highly fragmented, comprising  a number of aggressive EU and non -EU based 
competitor s.14  
(33) Competitors and customers  considered Haier having a strong international 
portfolio of brands but a relatively weak brand presence, with low market shares 
in MDAs in Europe compared with other regions, such as Asia Pacific and 
North America.15  
(34) Haier was seen to be strategically  geared towards connected smart  devices, 
however most respondents held that nowadays, many supplier s have adopted 
this strategy and Haier did not seem to have any unique capacity in this respect, 
while Candy has only started manufacturing such devices.16 
(35) Customers and competitors responding to the market investigation do not expect 
the Transaction to negatively affect their businesses. Several respondents 
considered that the T ransaction  could even intensify competition  in MDAs as 
Haier intends to gain stronger foothold in Europe competing more aggressively 
to increase its market share: Relying on Candy’s growing brand  reputation and 
on its financial and industrial strength, Haier could become a more established, 
stronger  competitor as a result of the Transaction.17  
Other Member States  
(36) The transaction results in further six affected markets in the UK, Malta and 
Romania, as indicated in the below table.  
                                                 
13  See Report “Haier takes over Candy to gain a steady foothold in Europe”, October 2018,  Euromonitor 
Internatio nal. 
14  See replies to question 2  of the Commission  questionnaire to competitors and customers.  
15  See replies to question 2 of the Commission  questionnaire to competitors and customers.  
16  See replies to question 7 of the Commission  questionnaire to competitors and customers.  
17  See replies to question 9 of the Commission  questionnaire to competitors and customers.  

 
8 considerations  about business rationale, closeness and expected effects of the 
transaction in paragraphs (29)  to (36)  are also applicable.  
6. CONCLUSION  
(40) For the above reasons, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the 
notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with 
the EEA Agreement. This decision  is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of 
the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.  
For the Commission 
(Signed)  
 
Margrethe VESTAGER  
Member of the Commission