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, 13.4.2022  
C(2022 ) 2504 final  
PUBLIC VERSION  
 
KKR & Co. Inc.  
30 Hudson Yards New York  
NY 10001  
United States of America  
Subject : Case M. 10339  – KKR / LANDAL  
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 10 March 2022, the European Commission received notification of a proposed 
concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Me rger Regulation by which KKR & Co. 
Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, ‘KKR’ or ‘the Notifying Party’) acquires within 
the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation  control of the whole of 
Vacation Rental  B.V. (‘the Transaction’) , commonly  know n under the brand name 
Landal GreenParks (‘Landal ’, together with KKR ‘the Parties’).   
(2) Pursuant to a reasoned submission made by the Notifying Party on 12 August 2021 
under Article 4(4) of the Merger Regulation  and after transmitting the submission to 
                                                 
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’).  
In the published version of this decision, 
some 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information omitted has been replaced by 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 all Member States,  the Commission adopted on 14 September 2021 a decision 
referring the assessment of the effects of the Transaction on the relevant markets in 
the Netherlands to be examined by the competent authority of the Netherlands . The 
current decision r elates to the assessment of the effects of the Transaction on the 
relevant markets outside of the Netherlands.  
1. THE  PARTIE S AND THE  OPE RATION  
(3) KKR is a global investment firm that offers alternative asset management and capital 
markets and insurance solutions. KKR’s subsidiary Sandy HoldCo B.V., commonly 
known under the brand name Roompot  (‘Roompot’), manages, operates and acts as a 
booking agent  for holiday parks and campsites  primarily in the Netherlands but also 
in Belgium and Germany . Roompot is further active as a non -exclusive booking 
agent for holiday parks and camp sites in France and Spain. KKR acquired Roompot 
in 2020.  
(4) Landal is an owner , manager, booking agent and franchisor of holiday parks. These 
parks are located in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Denmark, UK, 
Hungary, the Czech Republic and Switzerland. The parks offer accommodation in 
holiday cottages, villas, bungalows and a number of Landal parks also have a 
campsite.  Landal is currently controlled by the managed vacation rentals group 
Awaze Limited.  
(5) Pursuant to a Signing Protocol dated 16 June 2021, Roompot will acquire 100% of 
the shares in Landal. KKR will therefore  acquire indirect sole control over Landal 
pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.  
2. UNION  DIME NSION  
(6) The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate world -wide turnover of 
more than EUR 5 000 million  (KKR: EUR […] million , Landal: EUR […] million) .3 
Each of them has a  Union -wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million  (KKR: EUR 
[…] million , Landal: […] million) , but they do not achieve more than two -thirds of 
their aggregate U nion-wide turnover within one and the same Member State. The 
notifi ed operation therefore has a U nion dimension.   
3. COMPE TITIVE ASSE SSME N T 
(7) Outside of the Netherlands the Transaction will give rise to affected market s only in 
the provision of accommodation in holiday parks in Germany.4 Roompot and Landal 
                                                 
3  Turnover calculated in accordance with Article 5 of the Merger Regulation . 
4  In Germany, t he Parties ’ activities  also overlap to a limited extent in distribution of travel services and in 
sales and marketing partnerships. Accord ing to the estimate s of the Notifying Party, the Parties’ combined 
shares in these markets are below 10% at any plausible market definition and the Transaction would 
therefore  not give rise to affect ed markets  in that respect. In Belgium, t he Parties ’ acti vities  overlap to a 
limited extent in the provision of accommodation in holiday parks , the distribution of travel services and 
in sales and marketing partnerships.  According to the estimate s of the Notifying Party, the Parties’ 
combined shares in these mar kets are below 10% at any plausible market definition and the Transaction 
would therefore  not give rise to affect ed markets . 
 
 
3 both operate holiday parks. Holiday parks offer self -catering accommodation, often 
in the form of recreational houses and in some cases, hotel and camping facilities. In 
addition, the parks often offer facilities such as a swimming pool, shops, restaurants  
and playgrounds.  
3.1. Product market  
(8) The Notifying Party submit s that the relevant market is the broader market for 
holiday accommodation, which comprises holiday houses  on holiday parks, 
individual holiday houses , campsites and non -urban holiday hotels and resort hotels. 
That market is to be distinguished from the market for urban accommodation, which 
comprises short -stay urban residences and urban hotels.  
(9) The Commission has in the past not assessed the relevant market for accommodation 
in holiday  parks specifically. The Commission’s previous decisions have so far 
focussed in particular on the hotel segment, either defining a separate product market 
for hotels or defining a potential market for hotels and short stay residences, both 
with potential sub -segment ations based on price or comfort category among other 
factors.5 
(10) The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ( ‘ACM ’) assessed the 
market for holiday parks in its Gran Dorado/Center Parcs decision  in 2001 .6 The 
ACM concluded that hotels, group accommodations, individual recreational houses 
and campsites most likely do not belong to the same product market as holiday 
parks. The ACM, however, left its conclusions on these points open and also did not 
reach def initive conclusions as regards potential further sub -segmentations of the 
market for holiday parks , depending for instance on whether the holiday park 
operates year -round and h as a wide range of facilities (‘four season holiday parks’ ). 
(11) In its letter of 19  August 20 21 agreeing to the Parties’ request for a partial referral , 
the ACM noted that it considers, in line with its previous decision s, that a possible 
relevant product market could be defined as the market for holiday houses  in holiday 
parks excluding (i) camp sites, including those offering chalets and similar types of 
accommodations or more luxurious camping facilities, (ii) group accommodations 
(iii) individual recreational houses (cottages and apartments) and (iv) hotels.  In its 
letter, the ACM did not consider that further segmentation of the market between 
four season holiday parks and other holiday parks was needed.  
(12) As explained above, holiday parks offer self -catering accommodation, often in the 
form of recreational h ouses and in some cases, hotel and camping facilities. In 
addition, the parks often offer central facilities such as a swimming pool, shops, 
restaurants and playgrounds. Market participants interviewed by the Commission7 
and the Parties’ internal documents8 point ed to a separate market for holiday parks 
that is distinct from other holiday accommodations. Holiday  parks , which  are usually 
located in ‘natural’ surroundings  (forest, lake or coast) , offer a different type of 
holiday compared to hotels and holida ys flats that are typically located in urban 
                                                 
5  M.7902 – Marriott International/ Starwood  Hotels  &  Resorts Worldwide . 
6  ACM decision of 20 February 2001, Case 2209, Pierre & Vacances S.A. en Carp Ltd en Center Parcs 
N.V. en Gran Dorado Leisure N.V.  
7  Minutes of interviews with market participants, DOC IDs 39, 66 and 119.  
8  Form CO, Annex 12, page 12; Annex 16, page 46; Annex 17, pages 64 -65, 71, 83 -84, 154.  
 
 
4 environment. Holidays parks also offer a different holiday experience compared to 
camping and mobile home parks as they offer a substan tially higher level of comfort.  
(13) Within the market for accommodation in holid ays parks, m arket participants 
interviewed by the Commission9 and the Parties’ internal documents10 suggest that 
holiday parks could be differentiated according to the level of services they offer . 
The differences relate to factors such as the size and quality of the accommodations, 
the choice of central facilities and activities offered in the parks11 and the general 
state of the park ( new or  renovated on the one hand or old  on the other ).  
(14) Neverth eless, it seems that further segmenting the market for accommodation in 
holidays parks according to quality groups may not be appropriate . First, the 
interplay between the factors noted above leads to a wide spectrum of holidays parks 
on offer and there do not seem to be clear criteria by which holiday park s can be  
segmented into quality groups .  There also seems to be a degree of substitutability 
between some of these factors .12 In addition , each operator may offer different levels 
of services between its own holiday parks . Indeed, t he Parties and other holiday park 
operators in Germany offer a varying degree of services and central facilities 
between their parks that may categorise the same operator  in different quality 
group s.13 Furthermore , with respect t o ‘four season holidays parks’ referred to by the 
ACM in its Gran Dorado/Center Parcs decision  of 2001 , it seems that there have 
been developments in the market and today holiday parks may be open year -round 
even with limited offer of central facilities  and services .14 Indeed, the Parties, in their 
internal documents,15 and market participants interviewed by the Commission16 refer 
to holiday parks as belonging to one market with differentiated offer rather than 
divided into separate markets according to qualit y of services.  
(15) In light of the above, t he Commission will examine the effects of the Transaction on 
the market for the provision of accommodation in holiday parks taking into 
consideration the possible differentiation between holiday parks according to the 
level of services they offer.     
3.2. Geographic market  
(16) The Notifying Party submits that a prima facie  case can be made that the market is 
national in scope but point s to competitive pressure deriving also from the 
willingness of consumers to travel abroad . 
                                                 
9  Minutes of interviews with market participants, DOC IDs 39, 66 and 119.  
10  Form CO, Annex 33, page 7; Annex 16, page 44  ; Annex 13, page 9; Annex 16, page 44.  
11  These may include central facilities and services such as swimming pools, playgrounds, restaurants, 
shop s, wellness services, indoor and outdoor sport facilities , equipment rental services and other 
recreational activities . 
12  For example, an internal document of the Parties states that […] Form CO, Annex 17, page 214.  
13  Form CO, paragraph 101, 104, 188-189, 226, 244 -245. 248; response of the Notifying Party to RFI -1, 
paragraphs 14 et seq . See also the Parties’ internal documents, Form CO, Annex 15, page 10; Annex 16, 
page 37 ; Annex 17, page 162, 168 -169. 
14  Response of the Notifying Party to RFI -1, paragraphs 14 et seq.  
15  Form CO, Annexes 12 -13, 15 -17, 19 -20, 27, 31, 33.  
16  Minutes of interviews with market participants, DOC IDs 39, 66 and 119.  
 
 
5 (17) The Commission has in the past defined the markets for hotel accommodation 
services and for short -stay residences as either national or local.17   
(18) The ACM did not reach a definitive conclusion on the geographic scope of the 
markets in its Gran Dorado/Cent er Parcs decision  of 2001 . It found that customers 
were willing to drive a maximum of 3 -4 hours for stays in holiday parks and that 
market participants had indicated a maximum travel distance of 2 hours or 200km. It 
also considered that there are differenc es between the competitive conditions in 
marketing holiday parks between the Netherlands compared to Belgium and 
Germany. According to the ACM, holiday parks have traditionally been strong and 
well-known in the Netherlands and a considerable part of the sh ort holidays in the 
Netherlands takes place at holiday parks while this is the case to a much lesser extent 
in Germany and Belgium. Furthermore, according to the ACM, marketing of holiday 
parks needs to take into account language and customs and requires a  national 
distribution network.18  
(19) Market participants interviewed by the Commission supported  the view that the 
geographic scope of the market corresponds to catchment areas based on customers’ 
driving time. They explained that the size of the catchment ar eas changes along the 
year because during holiday periods customers are willing to drive longer hours for 
longer stays in holiday parks. Estimation s varied between one to three hours’ drive 
for short stays, three to four hours for longer stays and suggesti ng that some 
customers may be even willing to drive longer hours during the summer holidays.19  
(20) According to a customer survey submitted by the Parties, the large majority of their 
customers were driving between three and five hours to the holiday parks.20 The 
survey largely confirms the views of the market participants interviewed by the 
Commission that pointed to the same traveling timeframes of three to five hours for 
short and long stays21. For the purpose of this case, which does not relate to the 
Nethe rlands, the Commission will examine , in addition to a national market in 
Germany, catchment areas of two, three and five hours’ drive  in Germany .  
(21) It is however not necessary to reach a final conclusion on the geographic market 
definition as the Transactio n will not give rise to competition concerns under any 
plausible definition.  
3.3. Assessment of horizontal relationships  
(22) Germany represent s a small part of the Parties’ overall activities in holiday parks . 
Roompot is active in Germany with 5 holiday parks22 comp ared to 92 holiday parks 
                                                 
17  M.7902 – Marriott International/ Starwood  Hotels  &  Resorts Worldwide , M.3858 Lehman  
Brothers/SCG/Sta rwood/Le Meridien,  IV/M.1596 -Accor/Blackstone/Colony/  Vivendi and M.2197 -
Hilton/Accor/Forte/Travel Service JV . 
18  ACM decision of 20 February 2001, Case 2209, Pierre & Vacances S.A. en Carp Ltd en Center Parcs 
N.V. en Gran Dorado Leisure N.V.  
19  Minutes  of interviews with market participants, DOC IDs 39, 66 and 119.  
20  From CO, paragraph 194 et seq.  
21  Minutes of interviews with market participants, DOC IDs 39, 66 and 119.  
22  Roompot’s website offers in total 12 holiday sites in Germany. Two of those, Bergresort Winterberg and 
Résidence Winterberg are holiday apartment complexes  (a segment in which Landal is not active in 
Germany) . Five other sites are not operated or controlled by Roompot and only use its website as a 
reservation platform.   
 
 
6 in the Netherlands. Landal is active in Germany with 10 holiday parks,23 compared 
to 57 holiday parks in the Netherlands. Germany also represents a modest share of 
the Parties’ turnover. In 2020, Roompot generated less than […]% of its total 
turnover in Germany , EUR […] million  compared to EUR […] million  in the 
Netherlands . Landal generated […]% of its total turnover in Germany, EUR […] 
million  compared to EUR […] million  in the Netherlands .24 
(23) The Notifying Party provided market  share estimates on the narrowest product 
market for holiday accommodation on which the Parties overlap in Germany, that is, 
accommodation in holiday parks. Based on the aggregated data published by the 
German Federal Statistical Office (DeStatis), the Not ifying Party estimates that the 
Parties’ combined market shares in a national market for accommodation in holiday 
parks in Germany are below 20% both by the number of guest s and by the number of 
guest nights.  The Transaction therefore does not give rise to  an affected national 
market for accommodation in holiday parks in Germany.  
(24) The Notifying Party submitted that it did not have market data on the capacity, 
turnover or number of guest nights in competing holiday parks that would allow it to 
calculate reli able market shares based on catchment areas. However, as the analysis 
below shows, post-Transaction there will remain sufficient competition to the 
Parties’ holiday parks under  any plausible market definition.  
(25) The Notifying Party has identified 223 holiday parks in Germany in addition to the 
Parties’ 15 parks.25 A number of well-established holiday parks chains are operating 
in Germany:  
 Center Parcs is a chain of large -scale, high -end holiday parks that operates a 
total of 27 parks in the Netherland s, France, Belgium and Germany , of which 
7 parks  in Germany . It is part of the Pierre & Vacances Group.  
 Novasol is a large European chain operating in 26 European countries. 
Novasol has 24 holiday parks in Germany. It is part of the Awaze Group, the 
current owner of Landal.  
 H&P Touristik is a German operator offering over 1,000 holiday 
accommodations and 7 holidays parks throughout Germany.  
 DanCenter offers over 28,000 holiday accommodations in Denmark, 
Germany, Norway, Sweden and southern Europe. It operates 5 holiday parks 
in Germany.  
 UplandParcs offers holiday accommodations in Germany and Austria. It 
operates 3 holiday parks in Germany.  
                                                 
23  Landal’s  website offers in total 12 holiday sites in Germany . Two sites, Dormio Resort Eifeler Tor  and 
Marissa, are not operated or controlled by Landal and only use its website as a reservation platform.   
24  Form CO, Annex 8. The proportion of the Parties’ activ ities in Germany was similar also in 2019, the year 
before the pandemic. The Notifying Party does not expect this proportion to change significantly in the 
coming years; response of the Notifying Party to RFI -1, paragraphs 1 -2.     
25  Form CO, annex 41.  
 
 
7  Cuxlandparks operates 3 holiday parks in Germany in addition to other types 
of holiday accommodations.  
(26) In addition, several large Dutch holiday park operators have entered recently the 
market in Germany. Dormio  operates holiday parks in the Netherlands, Austria, 
Spain, and France.  It has recently entered the German market through the  Eifeler Tor 
resort, located next to the Eifel National Park in North Rhine -Westphalia.26 Dutchen , 
operating thirteen holiday parks in the Netherland s, is entering the German market 
through the development of the Borntal park.27 EuroParcs, an operator of clo se to 60 
holiday parks in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria has recently 
entered Germany with the purchase of the Biggesee -Waldenburg camping park in 
Sauerland with the intention to develop it into a holiday park .28  
(27) The map below shows the l ocation of the Parties’ 15 holiday parks in Germany and 
the competing holiday parks. As can be seen in the map, there is a concentration of 
the Parties’ holiday parks (6 Landal parks and 2 Roompot parks) at the west of 
Rhineland -Palatinate that are all wit hin 2 hours’ drive from each other. The rest of 
the Parties’ holiday parks (4 Landal park s and 3 Roompot parks) are located at the 
centre and in the North of Germany, spread over a large area and surrounded by a 
significantly larger number of competing hol iday parks.  
 
Yellow dots = Landal parks ; orange dots = Roomport  parks;  blue dots = competitors ’ parks . 
Source: The Notifying Party  
                                                 
26  Form CO, 323 and 382.  
27  Form CO, paragraph 325.  
28  Form CO, 326 and 382.  



 
 
10 (29) In all catchment areas, the Parties will continue  to face competition from holiday 
parks that offer a similar level of central facilities , services  and sufficient capacity , as 
the examples below show .29  
(30) First, a s explained above, the highest concentration of Parties’ holiday parks is at the 
west of Rhineland -Palatinate, where within 2 hours drive from each other, 8 of the 
Parties’ parks are located . The Landal parks  at issue  are Eifel Prümtal (29 houses  
that would increase to 95 by the end of 2024) , Hochwald (215 houses ), Mont Royal 
(185 houses ), Sonnenberg (250 houses ), Warsberg (543 houses ) and Wirfttal (213 
houses ). The Roompot parks are Eifelpark  Kronenburger See (128 houses ) and 
Ferienresort Cochem (378 houses ). With the exception of the Eifel Prümtal  park, all 
other parks offer a wide variety of central facilities and services such as swimming 
pools, restaurants, playgrounds, sport and wellness facilities and equipment rental. 
The Eifel Prümtal park , which is smaller than the others , offers only playground s 
and a sunbathing area; unlike the other parks, it is also not open year -round.  
(31) Post-Transaction the Parties will continue to face strong competition  in the 
catchment areas within 2 hours drive fro m the Parties’ holiday parks listed in the 
previous paragraph . Competitors offering a wide range of central facilities and 
services comparable to those offered by the Parties’ parks (excluding the Eifel 
Prümtal park) include: Center Parcs Bostalsee (480 ho uses) and Eifel Mosel 
Nürburgring (460 houses) , which are very large holiday parks, Eurostand Resort 
Moseltal (126 houses) , Dormio Eifeler Tor (168 houses), Ferienpark Hambachtal 
(218 houses), and Sporthotel & Resort Grafenwald (48 houses and 89 hotel room s). 
In addition, there exist several competing holidays park s that, similar to the Eifel 
Prümtal park , offer limited central facilities and services , such as Vak antiepark 
Schindeldor f (100 houses) and Ferienpark Himmelberg (29 houses).  
(32) Second, Landal Travemünde (203 houses) and Roompot HANSA -Park Resort am 
Meer (55 houses) , located at the Bal tic sea in Schleswig – Holstein are less than two 
hours’ drive from each other. Landal Travemünde offers central facilities and 
services such as playgrounds , mini -golf and restaurants. Roompot HANSA -Park 
Resort is a small er park and the only central facility it offers is a sauna. Therefore, 
the two parks are not close competitors. Within 2 hours’ dri ve from these parks, 
there are competing parks such as Ferie npark Weissenhäuser Strand (1002 houses ), 
Van der Valk Resort Linstow (491 houses  and 91 hotel rooms ), Strand resort 
Markgrafenheide (141 houses ), and Center Parcs Bispinger Heide (927 houses  and 
69 hotel rooms). These parks offer central facilities and ser vices such as swimming 
pools, playgrounds, sport facilities and restaurants. In addition, Dancenter Marina 
Wendtorf – Ostsee (145 houses ) that offers no central facilities is comparable to 
Roompot HANSA -Park Resort.  
                                                 
29  The approach taken in the following paragraphs is to examine the Parties’ and their competitors’ holiday 
parks in catchment areas of 2 hours’ drive. If sufficient competition ex ists in catchment areas of 2 hours’ 
drive it could be concluded that sufficient competition exists in larger catchment areas of 3 and 5 hours’ 
drive. Larger catchment areas may include more Parties’ parks but those additional parks will continue to 
be cons trained by the competitors’ parks that were identified in their closer vicinity. It is theoretically 
possible that larger catchment areas would include more Parties’ parks and not the competitors of the 
additional parks because the competitors  may be locat ed just outside of the larger catchment areas. 
However, as can be seen in the map and in Tables 1 -3, because of the small number of the Parties’ parks 
and the pattern of their deployment in Germany, larger catchment areas capture more competitors’ 
holidays  parks than Parties’ parks.  
 
 
11 (33) Third, Roompot Ferienresort Bad Bentheim  (244 houses ) in North Rhine – 
Westphalia and Landal GreenParks Dwergter Sand (173 houses ) located in the 
recreational area of Oldenburger Müsterland in Lower Saxony are less than two 
hours’ drive from each other.  They both offer central facilities and services such as 
swimming pools, restaurants, playgrounds, sport facilities and equipment rental. 
Within 2 hours’ drive from these parks, there are competing holiday parks such as 
Ferienzentrum Schloss Dankern (770 houses ), Ferien -und Erholungspark Alf see 
(172 houses ), Novasol Fe rienpark Marissa (478 houses ) and Center Parcs 
Nordseeküste (412 houses and 66 hotel rooms) offering similar central facilities and 
services to the Parties’ parks.  
(34) Fourth, Landal Winterberg (200 houses ) in North Rhine – Westpha lia offers a 
swimming pool, playgrounds, restaurant and equipment rental. No other of the 
Parties’ holiday park s is located within 2 hours’ drive. Competitors ’ parks within 2 
hours’ drive offering similar central facilities and services include UplandParcs  
Winterberg (55 houses ), Fe rienwohnpark Silbersee (60 houses ), the Novasol parks of 
Feriendorf Frankenau (200 houses ) and Seepark Kirchheim (144 houses ) and Centre 
Parcs Hochsauerlan (660 houses ). 
(35) Fifth, Roompot Hafendorf Rheinsberg (60 houses ) is located at Rheinberger See 
north of Berlin. The central facilities in the park are limited to a dock and a 
playground. No other of the Parties’ holiday park s is located within 2 hours’ drive. 
Within that distance there are several parks offering simil ar limited choice of central 
facilities and services such as the Novasol parks Hafendorf Zerpenschleuse (53 
houses ) and Ferienpark Müritz (44 houses ). In addition, there are within 2 hours’ 
drive several larger holiday parks offering a wider choice of central facilities and 
services such as Van der Valk Resort Linstow (491 houses ), StrandResort 
Markgrafenheide (141 houses ) and All season Parks Ferienpark Mirow (266 houses ).   
(36) Sixth, Landal Salztal Paradies (109 houses ) is located near the Harz National Park  in 
Lower Saxony. It does not offer central facilities . No other of the Parties’ holiday 
parks is located within 2 hours’ drive. Within that distance, the competing Novasol 
Ferienhausdorf Panoramapark St. Andreasberg (54 houses ) also does not offer any 
central facilities. Very limited central facilities are offered by Das Schierke, 
Harzresort am Brocken (35 houses ) and Torfhaus Harzresort (75 houses ). In 
addition, there are within 2 hours’ drive several larger holiday parks offering wider 
choice of central facilities and services such as Navasol Ferienpark Thale Bodental 
(64 houses ) and Vakantiepark SeePark Kirchheim (144 houses ).  
(37) Consequently, customers in Germany will continue to enjoy post -Transaction a wide 
choice of holiday parks and operators  with different degrees of services  in addition 
to the Parties and competition will remain strong.  In line with the results of the 
above analysis, t he market participants interviewed by the Commission did not raise 
any concerns with respect to  the impact o f the Transaction in the accommodation in 
holiday parks in  Germany.   
(38) In view of all of the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the 
Transaction does not  raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal 
market as regards the pr ovision of accommodation in holiday parks in Ge rmany.   
 
 
12 4. CONCLUSION  
(39) For the above reasons, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the 
notified operation outside of the Netherlands 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  
Executive Vice-President