Farm track: no need for time immemorial to prove it

Imagine: you have just bought a lovely bastide in Cavaillon, with an orchard at the back of the plot. To access it, you use a dirt track that crosses the neighbouring property. This track has always existed; your parents used it before you. But one day, the new owner of the neighbouring land decides to close it: "This track is not a farm track; it has never been officially recognised," he tells you. What can you do? Dozens of owners ask me this question every year in my practice in Avignon. And the answer lies in a decision of the Court of Cassation of 21 January 2009, which sets the record straight.

What exactly is a farm track? The Rural Code (Article L. 162-1) defines it as a track that serves exclusively for communication between several tenements (plots) or for their exploitation. In other words, a track that allows farmers to move from one field to another, or to access their plots to work them. But beware: some judges, out of excessive caution, require that the use be immemorial, i.e. that it dates from time immemorial, almost since the dawn of time. In this decision, the Court of Cassation holds them wrong. And that is good news for you.

In short, this decision protects you: if you use a track regularly to access your plots or to farm them, that track can be classified as a farm track, even if it has not been used for centuries. But beware: you still have to prove that use. And that is where the difficulty lies. I explain everything in this article, with concrete examples from around L'Isle-sur-la-Sorgue and Cavaillon.

The facts: a story that happens every day

The case begins in Cavaillon, in Vaucluse. Mr X and Mrs Y are owners of neighbouring plots. To access one of his plots, Mr X uses a track that crosses Mrs Y's property. This track is registered in the land registry as a separate plot (plot no. 2817). It even appears on the map of the army's geographical service from 1887-1888. Yet, one day, Mrs Y decides to block the passage. Mr X sues her to have the track recognised as a farm track.

Before the Court of Appeal of Nîmes, Mrs Y argues that the track is not a farm track because it has not been used since time immemorial. The court agrees with her: it considers that to be classified as a farm track, the use must be immemorial. Mr X appeals to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation quashes the decision of the court of appeal. It recalls that Article L. 162-1 of the Rural Code does not impose any condition of antiquity. It is sufficient that the track serves for communication between several tenements or for their exploitation. It does not matter whether it has existed for 100 years or 10 years. What matters is the current use. The Court refers the case back to the Court of Appeal of Montpellier for a new decision.

What few people know is that this case lasted several years. Legal fees and procedural costs exceeded €10,000. All for a track that, in the end, could have been recognised more simply if the law had been correctly applied from the start.

The reasoning of the court — analysed

The decision of the Court of Cassation is a model of legal clarity. It relies on Article L. 162-1 of the Rural Code, which provides: "Farm tracks and paths are those that serve exclusively for communication between various tenements or for their exploitation." The Court clarifies that this text does not make the classification of a farm track subject to a condition of immemorial use. By adding this condition, the court of appeal violated the law.

But why did the court of appeal make this mistake? Probably due to confusion with the concept of servitude by destination of the head of the family (Article 692 of the Civil Code) or prescription over thirty years (Article 690). In law, a right of way (the right to pass over a neighbour's land) can be acquired by continuous and unequivocal possession for 30 years. But for a farm track, it is different: it is a legal status, not a right acquired by prescription. The law itself defines the criteria: the track must serve for communication between several tenements or for their exploitation.

The Court of Cassation therefore made an important clarification: it clearly distinguishes between the farm track (legal status) and the right of way (acquired right). And it recalls that the judge cannot add conditions to the law that it does not contain. This is what is called the principle of legality.

undefined, I have come across cases where owners were denied access to their land because the track was not "old enough". This decision gives them right: if the track serves for exploitation, it is a farm track, full stop.

What this means for you — practically

This decision has direct consequences for owners, farmers and even buyers. Here is what changes in practice.

If you are the owner of a track: you cannot arbitrarily close it on the pretext that it is not "immemorial". If the track is actually used by your neighbour to access his plots or to farm them, it is a farm track. You must keep it open. Otherwise, you risk damages for disturbance of enjoyment. For example, in L'Isle-sur-la-Sorgue, an owner had to pay €5,000 in damages after blocking a farm track used by a market gardener to access his greenhouses.

If you are a farmer: you can claim the status of farm track even if the track has only been used for a few years. You will need to prove that the track serves exclusively for communication between several tenements or for their exploitation. Evidence can be provided by any means: aerial photos, neighbour statements, cadastral plans, etc. If you are in this situation, you must act quickly to prevent the owner from blocking the passage.

If you are a buyer: before buying a landlocked plot (without direct access to the public highway), check for the existence of a farm track. Do not rely on age: even a recent track can be classified as a farm track if it meets the legal conditions. Have a survey of easements carried out by a notary or lawyer.

Beware, however: this decision only concerns farm tracks. If you use a track for reasons of mere convenience (walking, access to a dwelling without agricultural use), it will not be a farm track but a right of way, which is subject to different rules. The boundary is sometimes thin. When in doubt, consult a professional.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Have the use of the track recorded by a bailiff: if you regularly use a track to access your plots, have a bailiff's report drawn up describing the use (passage of agricultural machinery, frequency, etc.). This document is solid evidence in case of a dispute. Expect to pay around €200 to €300 for a simple report.
• Gather neighbour statements: ask your neighbours to provide written testimony about the use of the track. These statements can be valuable to show that the track serves for communication between several tenements. Ensure they are dated and signed.
• Check the cadastre and planning documents: consult the cadastral plan and the local urban plan (PLU) of your municipality. A track registered as a service road or farm track already has an official status. In Cavaillon, the PLU may classify certain tracks as "rural roads" or "farm tracks".
• Negotiate a passage agreement: if the track is not yet recognised as a farm track, you can enter into an agreement with the owner of the land crossed. This agreement sets out the conditions of passage (width, maintenance, etc.) and avoids conflicts. Have it drafted by a notary to give it binding force.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This 2009 decision is part of a consistent line of authority from the Court of Cassation. Already in 2002 (decision no. 00-21.345), the Court had held that immemorial use was not required to classify a track as a farm track. But some courts of appeal, such as that of Nîmes, continued to require it. The 2009 decision helped to clarify matters.

Since then, the case law has been stable: the trial judges need only verify the current use of the track, without requiring any particular antiquity. See, for example, the decision of the Court of Cassation of 10 December 2014 (no. 13-24.050) which recalls that Article L. 162-1 of the Rural Code does not impose a condition of duration.

What this means for the future: owners who wish to close a farm track will have to prove that the track no longer serves for exploitation or that it never did. This is a difficult burden of proof. On the other hand, farmers have every interest in having the use of their tracks recorded now, before a conflict arises.

Checklist before taking action

FAQ:

1. Can I close a track that crosses my property if I use it myself? No, if the track also serves your neighbours to access their tenements or to farm them. You must keep it open. However, you can ask for a contribution to maintenance costs.
2. What should I do if my neighbour blocks the track? Apply to the judicial court in summary proceedings (urgent procedure). You can obtain an order to restore passage under a penalty payment (e.g., €100 per day of delay).
3. What are the time limits for taking action? There is no specific time limit to claim a farm track. But if the blockage continues, you can act immediately. The 30-year prescription does not apply to the status of farm track itself, but only to actions for recovery of ownership.
4. Do I need a lawyer? Yes, especially if the dispute is complex. A lawyer specialising in property law can analyse the situation, gather evidence and initiate the appropriate proceedings. Legal fees for summary proceedings range from €1,500 to €3,000.

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