SAFER’s right of pre-emption to buy is a cornerstone of French agricultural policy, designed to prevent land speculation and support new farmers and their powers have increased in recent years.
Most rural property sales are subject to prior consideration by SAFER. This is one of the main reasons why sales of rural homes take around three months to complete. A similar right exists for local councils, mainly in connection with urban properties.
However, the agency’s practices have long been a source of tension, with critics arguing that its pricing methods can be opaque and its pre-emption decisions overly broad. We reported in the past on a legal action against SAFER that has been launched by the French national association of estate agents, FNAIM.
In a decision that clarifies the balance of power between landowners and SAFER, the French Supreme Court, the Cour de Cassation, ruled that sellers may withdraw their property from sale at any point during judicial price review proceedings — even before a court sets the final value.
The ruling resolves a long-standing legal ambiguity regarding the rights of sellers when SAFER exercises its right to pre-empt over agricultural land or property.
The case began in 2010, when a Belgian widow notified the sale of agricultural property in western France for €490,000. The local SAFER exercised its right of pre-emption, offering to purchase the land for €307,000.
Under French law, if the owner disagrees with SAFER’s offer, they can either accept it, withdraw the property from sale, or request a judicial review of the price within six months.
Dissatisfied with the offer, the sellers initiated judicial proceedings to challenge the price, as permitted by French rural code. However, during the course of the litigation, the seller sought to withdraw the property from sale. The SAFER contested this withdrawal, arguing it was invalid because it was not communicated through the notary handling the transaction, as required by regulatory texts.
Lower courts sided with the SAFER, ruling that the withdrawal was procedurally flawed and that the sale was therefore perfected at the agency’s proposed price.
In its recent decision the Cour de Cassation overturned the lower court’s ruling, stating:
“When the seller has seized the court for judicial review of the price proposed by the SAFER within the six-month period provided for by Article L. 143-10 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code, they may, at any time during the procedure — even before the court’s decision setting the market value of the property —withdraw the property from sale, without being required to inform the SAFER via the notary handling the transaction.”
The court emphasised that the seller’s right to withdraw is not contingent upon the notary’s involvement once judicial review is underway, an interpretation that aims to protect sellers from being locked into transactions they considered unfavourable, while still allowing SAFER to fulfil its role.
Related Reading:
