Authorisation to farm: lack of professional competence is not a ground for refusal

The prefect granted a winegrowing company authorisation to farm a plot in Chablis. Another company, which farmed the plot as tenant and was challenging its notice to quit before the rural lease tribunal, sought annulment of the authorisation. It argued in particular that one member of the beneficiary company had not demonstrated agricultural professional competence, which should have led to refusal.

The Conseil d’État dismissed the appeal.

It first recalled that Article L. 331-2 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishing Code solely determines which operations require prior authorisation. Where a farming member lacks the required professional competence or experience, authorisation is mandatory regardless of the area involved. But that is not, in itself, a ground for refusal. The grounds which may justify refusal are exhaustively listed in Article L. 331-3-1 of the same Code.

It then found that the prefect had properly examined whether the authorisation might jeopardise the economic viability of the existing tenant’s holding, even though a dispute over the notice’s validity was pending before the rural lease court. The prefect must compare applications against the priorities established by the regional agricultural holdings master plan.

Finally, the Conseil d’État reaffirmed the independence of the legal regimes: farm structure controls and the statutory rural tenancy regime are autonomous bodies of rules. Disputes concerning the notice belong to the ordinary courts; those concerning authorisation to farm belong to the administrative courts.

For the prospective farmer, lack of an agricultural qualification or experience does not close the door: it only requires an authorisation application, assessed against the regional master plan’s criteria, including priorities, viability of the holdings concerned and ranking of competing applications.

For an existing farmer challenging authorisation, the applicant’s lack of competence is ineffective as a standalone argument. It is more effective to show that the operation jeopardises the viability of their own holding, or that their situation gives them a higher priority ranking under the master plan.

In a recovery-notice dispute, both procedures should be pursued in parallel, before the rural lease tribunal and the administrative court, remembering that each follows its own rules and timetable.