After recovery, farming through a company is not a fraud against the tenant’s rights

Under Article L. 411-59 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishing Code, the recovery beneficiary must devote themselves to farming the recovered property for at least nine years, either individually or through a company with legal personality. They cannot merely direct and supervise: they must participate effectively and permanently in work on site, although they may receive assistance.

Since 2014, the Court of Cassation has held that, where recovered property is intended to be made available to a company, the notice must say so. More broadly, the landlord must fairly inform the tenant of the intended farming arrangements.

Article L. 411-66 sanctions, through reinstatement or damages, a beneficiary who fails to meet their obligations or acts fraudulently against the tenant’s rights.

A landlord served notice to recover for himself land leased since 1989. The notice was upheld and the tenant had to vacate by November 2016. Several years later, the landlord made the plots available to an SCEA farming company formed with his son, in which he held all but one share and remained a farming member. The notice had not mentioned the project. The former tenant sought compensation, alleging lack of personal farming and fraud.

The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It recalled that Article L. 411-59 allows the recovery beneficiary to farm either individually or through a company with legal personality. The landlord was still farming the land personally: he therefore did not breach that provision, and making the land available to the company did not constitute fraud against the evicted tenant’s rights, regardless of whether he had informed the tenant in the notice.

This ruling was not published in the Bulletin and should be read cautiously. It does not remove the obligation to mention in the notice company use contemplated from the outset. It means that a subsequent change in farming arrangements, not planned when the notice was served, is not wrongful in itself.

The decisive point remains the beneficiary’s personal, effective and permanent participation in the work. This is where the evicted tenant should focus: if the company actually farms without the beneficiary working there, or if the arrangement prepares an early transfer to a third party before the nine years expire, an action under Article L. 411-66 regains its full force.