Rural leases and SAFER: three Court of Cassation rulings to note

An agricultural landholding group (GFA) acquired an estate in the late 1990s. It later promised to sell a house and several plots to a couple, subject to termination of a long-term lease granted to a farming company (EARL). That condition was not fulfilled, so the sale never took place.

In 2014, the GFA decided to sell the entire estate to SAFER. The couple, who still occupied part of the land, claimed tenant status in order to exercise the tenant farmer’s right of pre-emption. Their claim blocked the sale for several years before being found unfounded. The GFA brought proceedings for eviction and damages. The couple responded by seeking recognition of a rural lease.

At first instance, the court found in their favour: in 2016, it held that the wife held an oral rural lease. The Court of Appeal overturned that judgment and found an abuse of rights. It recognised a damages claim in favour of the GFA in the couple’s insolvency proceedings for the obstruction of the sale.

The Court of Cassation rejected this reasoning. It reiterated an established principle: where a judgment has recognised the legitimacy of legal proceedings, bringing those proceedings cannot amount to an abuse of rights, even if the judgment is later overturned on appeal, unless there is a particular circumstance that the court must identify. The Court of Appeal had stated that no decision had ever recognised the couple as tenant farmers. This was incorrect, since the 2016 judgment had done so. Its reasoning therefore failed to establish an abuse of rights.

In practice. A landowner whose sale is blocked by a claim to a rural lease cannot rely solely on the ultimate failure of that claim to obtain compensation. If the occupier succeeded at an earlier stage of the proceedings, a particular circumstance, such as bad faith or an intention to cause harm, must be demonstrated. For the occupier, the ruling confirms that a serious claim for recognition of a lease, even if ultimately rejected, does not automatically give rise to liability for damages.

At an auction ordered in liquidation proceedings, a buyer acquired a property comprising undeveloped land, a dwelling, outbuildings and coppice woodland. SAFER exercised its right of pre-emption. The displaced buyer sought to have that pre-emption annulled.

The Court of Appeal upheld the pre-emption. In its view, the house and outbuildings had ceased to be used for agriculture at the time of the sale only because farming had been forcibly discontinued in 2003 following the liquidation, and the buildings had undergone no change of designated use.

The Court of Cassation quashed the ruling for lack of a sufficient legal basis. Article L. 143-1 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishing Code allows pre-emption over buildings only in specific circumstances. Farm buildings must have retained an agricultural use, or meet the particular statutory conditions where pre-emption seeks to restore that use. Residential buildings must form part of an agricultural holding. The mere absence of a change of designated use does not establish those conditions. The court must specifically assess the agricultural use of the outbuildings and whether there is a holding to which the house and the non-wooded plots belong.

In practice. This ruling, published in the Bulletin, provides a strong argument for a displaced buyer challenging pre-emption over buildings where agricultural activity ceased long ago. Before exercising its right, SAFER must be able to demonstrate actual agricultural use, not merely the absence of a change of designated use under planning law.

A sale of plots to a farming company (SCEA) was notified to SAFER, which decided to exercise pre-emption. SAFER then published a call for applications to resell the land and allocated it to a candidate. The displaced SCEA and an unsuccessful candidate challenged both the pre-emption and the resale. The question before the Court was whether a file submitted to SAFER before publication of the call for applications could constitute a valid application.

The Court answered no, relying on Article R. 142-3 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishing Code. Only applications submitted after publication of the call and responding to that public offer may be considered for allocation of the property. Having asked SAFER to pre-empt and then provided it with a file accompanied by a promise to purchase does not constitute a valid application.

In practice. Publication of the call for applications safeguards transparency and equal treatment of candidates; it is not a mere formality. Anyone interested in pre-empted land must submit, or renew, their application after the call is published, even if they have already expressed interest. For an unsuccessful candidate, whether the successful application predates the call is a potential ground for annulment that should be checked systematically.

These three decisions illustrate the Court of Cassation’s scrutiny of mechanisms restricting the freedom to dispose of agricultural land. Abuse of rights must be established precisely. SAFER pre-emption remains strictly subject to the statutory conditions governing agricultural use. Finally, resale follows a publicity procedure whose observance is a condition for the validity of the allocation.