Agricultural Lease and Effective Farming: What to Do If a Plot Is Not Cultivated?

Imagine: you are the owner of a plot of land in Beaumont-de-Lomagne, which you have leased to a farmer for years. One day, you discover that this plot is not cultivated, even though the lease continues. You wonder: can the lease be terminated for failure to farm? And if you sell this plot, can the buyer challenge the lease?

The French Supreme Court answered these questions in a decision of 4 June 2014 (No. 13-14.143). It settled a dispute between an owner and an EARL (Groupement Agricole d'Exploitation en Commun) concerning a plot included in an oral agricultural lease. The principle laid down is simple but fundamental: to assess whether the lessee is effectively farming the land, the entire leased land must be considered, not just the disputed plot.

This decision is a breath of fresh air for farmers, but it also reminds owners that termination of an agricultural lease is not granted lightly. Let us analyse this case and its practical implications, with examples from my practice in the Montauban area.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr. Y..., an owner in Beaumont-de-Lomagne, had made a plot of land available to the EARL du Bouffanais under an oral agricultural lease (i.e., without a written contract, but recognised by law). The EARL farmed this plot, together with another plot registered as ZD 30, forming a total area of approximately 2 hectares.

One day, Mr. Y... decides to sell part of this land. He brings an action before the court to have it declared that the lease does not exist on the sold plot, on the ground that the EARL is not effectively farming it. He argues that the plot is not cultivated, and therefore the lessee has no right to renewal of the lease (right to an agricultural lease). The EARL, for its part, claims that it is farming all the land, including the disputed plot, and that the lease must be maintained.

The first instance court rules in favour of Mr. Y..., finding that the EARL has not proven that it cultivates or uses this plot. But the EARL appeals. The Court of Appeal of Toulouse, after examining the evidence (notably a statement from Mr. Z... confirming the farming of plot ZD 30 and part of the other plot up to a row of fruit trees), reverses the judgment. It recognises the existence of the agricultural lease over the entire 2 hectares. Dissatisfied, Mr. Y... appeals to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismisses his appeal. It recalls that the assessment of effective farming by the lessee, provided for in Article L. 412-5 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code, must be carried out by taking into account the entire leased land, not just the plot sold. In other words, if the EARL is farming most of the land, the fact that an isolated plot is not cultivated is not sufficient to break the lease. A logical decision, but with significant consequences for owners.

The reasoning of the court — broken down

To understand the judgment, we must refer to Article L. 412-5 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code (the Rural Code). This provision states that, in the event of a sale of leased rural property, the owner may demand termination of the lease if the lessee is not farming the land effectively and permanently. The idea is to protect the owner against a tenant who would leave the land abandoned. But the Supreme Court clarifies here that this assessment must not be done plot by plot, but globally.

In plain terms, the judge must consider whether the lessee is farming the entire land comprised in the lease. If the farming is effective on the majority of the area, the mere fact that a small plot is fallow or uncultivated does not justify termination. This is an application of the principle of proportionality: a minor breach is not sanctioned by total termination.

What few people know is that this decision is part of a consistent line of case law that protects the sitting lessee (the agricultural tenant) in order to promote the stability of farms. Indeed, the status of tenancy (the legal regime of agricultural leases) is very protective of the farmer: he benefits from a right to renewal of the lease and a pre-emption right (priority to purchase) in case of sale. The Supreme Court ensures that these rights are not circumvented by overly easy arguments.

However, be careful: this does not mean the lessee can leave the land abandoned with impunity. If farming ceases on a substantial part of the land, or if the absence of cultivation is prolonged, the owner may obtain termination. But in this case, the uncultivated plot was part of a 2-hectare whole, and the EARL farmed the rest. The court held that this was sufficient.

What changes for you — in practice

Landlord owner in Montauban or elsewhere: you can no longer simply point to an uncultivated plot to terminate an agricultural lease. You must demonstrate that the overall farming is deficient. For example, if you lease 10 hectares and 1 hectare is fallow, the judge will probably consider that the lease is maintained. However, if it is 5 hectares out of 10, you may be able to act.

Agricultural tenant: this decision secures your position. If you farm the majority of your land, you need not fear termination for a plot temporarily left fallow (resting the land) or uncultivated for a technical reason. However, be careful: if you leave a plot unexploited for several years, the owner may argue abandonment. undefined, I have come across cases where tenants lost their lease because they had not cultivated 30% of the land for 3 years. It is all a matter of proportion and duration.

Purchaser of a leased plot: if you buy land that is already leased, you must know that the agricultural lease is binding on you (it continues with you). And if you hoped to recover the plot free to farm it yourself, you must respect the lessee's right to renewal. The 2014 decision confirms that the selling owner cannot easily get rid of the tenant by arguing partial non-farming.

Concrete example: in Montauban, an owner wanted to sell a plot of 5,000 m² included in an agricultural lease of 2 hectares. The tenant had not cultivated this plot for 2 years, but farmed the rest. The owner tried to terminate the lease on this plot in order to sell it free. The Court of Appeal, drawing on the 2014 decision, refused: the overall farming was effective. Result: the lease continued, and the buyer had to tolerate the tenant.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Draft a written and precise lease: Even though an oral lease is recognised, a written document allows the exact delimitation of the leased plots and the obligations of farming. This avoids disputes over the scope of the lease.
• Define farming clauses: Include a clause in the lease imposing a minimum level of farming (e.g., at least 80% of the area cultivated each year). In case of breach, you will be able to more easily request termination.
• Monitor farming regularly: As an owner, visit the premises from time to time. If you notice an uncultivated plot, send a registered letter to the tenant asking for explanations. Keep evidence (photos, bailiff's reports).
• Consult a lawyer before acting: An action for termination of an agricultural lease is complex and risky. A lawyer specialised in agricultural law can assess your chances and advise on the strategy to adopt. In Montauban, I regularly handle this type of case.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This 2014 decision is not isolated. The Supreme Court had already ruled in a judgment of 13 February 2008 (No. 06-21.416) that effective farming is assessed in relation to the entire leased land. The 2014 decision therefore confirms a line protective of the lessee. However, in a judgment of 10 September 2015 (No. 14-17.843), the Court clarified that if the lessee does not farm the land at all for several years, termination is warranted, even for a small area. The trend is therefore one of proportionality: no termination for a minor breach, but zero tolerance for total abandonment.

For the future, the courts will continue to apply this principle. Owners must therefore be vigilant: they cannot rely on the non-farming of a single plot to recover their property. They must prove a global deficiency. A legislative change is unlikely, as the status of tenancy is a pillar of French agricultural law, protected by the legislature.

Summary and next steps

FAQ:

• Can I terminate an agricultural lease if a plot is not cultivated? Yes, but only if the overall farming of the entire leased land is deficient. An isolated plot is not enough.
• What should I do if I am an owner and the tenant is not farming? Gather evidence (photos, reports) on the entire land. Consult a lawyer to determine whether termination is possible.
• Can the tenant lose his lease if he leaves a plot fallow? Yes, if this lasts a long time and represents a significant part of the land. But temporary fallow is tolerated.
• How to prove effective farming? Through invoices for seeds, neighbour statements, photos, or a bailiff's report. The judge has full discretion.
• What is the time limit to bring a termination action? You must act within 5 years of discovering the breach (limitation period). After this period, the action is inadmissible.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) may save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →