Viticultural planting rights: the lessor can recover vines planted by the tenant

Imagine: you are the owner of a plot in Beausoleil, leased to a winegrower for twenty-five years. The lease provides that the tenant must plant and maintain the vineyard. At the expiry, you give notice. But the tenant claims the right to uproot the vines and take the plants, arguing that they obtained the administrative planting authorisations. Which of the two is entitled to keep the vines? The question, seemingly technical, goes to the heart of rural law and agricultural leases. The Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 24 March 1999 (No. 97-14.303), ruled: planting and replanting rights are attached to the leased land that supports the winegrowing operation. In other words, the lessor recovers the plantations at the end of the lease, unless they have expressly waived their right of accession (the right to become owner of the plantations made by the tenant).

This decision, handed down over twenty years ago, remains a reference for all players in the wine sector, from the Alpes-Maritimes to the Var. Why? Because it clarifies a often contentious point: who owns the vines planted by the tenant on the leased land? The answer is not obvious, as it combines contract law, rural law and administrative regulations on plantations. But in practice, it has considerable financial consequences. So, what exactly does this judgment say? And above all, how can it be applied concretely if you are a lessor or tenant? That is what we will see.

The facts: a story like any other

In 1973, an owner (whom we will call Mr X) grants a long-term lease to Mr and Mrs Z., winegrowers, on two plots located within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal of Nice. The contract stipulates that the tenants must plant and maintain the land as vineyard, and that at the expiry of the lease, all plantations and installations will remain with the owner. For twenty-five years, Mr and Mrs Z. operate the vineyard, obtain administrative authorisations for planting and replanting (so-called 'planting rights'), and maintain the vines.

In 1998, the lessor gives notice (termination of the lease) to the tenants. In accordance with the contract, they require them to leave the land in the state in which they took it, i.e. with the vines in place. But Mr and Mrs Z. dispute this: they argue that the planting rights belong to them personally, because they acquired them through their administrative steps. According to them, they can therefore uproot the plants and take them away, or at least obtain compensation.

The dispute comes before the Court of Appeal of Nice, which finds in favour of the tenants. The judges consider that, as operators, Mr and Mrs Z. hold the planting and replanting rights, and that the lessor, by requiring the return of the land in its current state, waived their right to rely on the impossibility of uprooting the plants. The owner then appeals to the Court of Cassation.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Court of Cassation quashes the Court of Appeal's decision. It considers that the lower court judges did not sufficiently characterise the lessor's waiver of their right of accession (right of ownership over the plantations). Indeed, Article L. 411-58 of the Rural Code provides that, unless otherwise agreed, plantations made by the tenant become the property of the lessor at the end of the lease, without compensation. This is what is called the right of accession.

But then, why did Mr and Mrs Z. think they could dispose of the plants? Because they confused two things: planting rights (administrative authorisations) and ownership of the plants (movable property or fixtures by destination). The Court of Cassation reminds that planting rights are attached to the land, not to the person of the operator. In short, even if the tenant obtained the authorisations, they benefit the land, and therefore the owner. The tenant cannot therefore claim a personal right over the plants.

However, note: the decision does not close off any possibility for the tenant to obtain compensation. If the lessor had expressly waived their right of accession (for example, by stipulating that the plants remain the tenant's property), the result would be different. But in this case, the simple clause requiring the return of the land in its current state does not constitute a waiver. In other words, the lessor does not have to prove that they wanted to keep the plants; it is for the tenant to demonstrate that the lessor waived their right.

What few people know is that this solution is consistent with the legal nature of the agricultural lease: the tenant is an operator, not an owner. The improvements they make (plantations, constructions) benefit the land, unless otherwise agreed. This is logical, because the lessor bears the risk of loss of the land. But then, how should you react if you are a tenant and you have invested in plantations? You must negotiate a clause for an exit indemnity or a right to take back the plants.

What this changes for you — concretely

For the lessor owner: you recover the vines at the end of the lease, without having to compensate the tenant. But beware: if you give notice, you must respect the statutory time limits (18 months before the end of the lease) and justify a valid reason (resumption for personal exploitation, etc.). undefined, I have come across cases where the lessor, thinking they would recover the vines for free, was faced with a claim for compensation by the tenant who had obtained planting rights in their own name. This decision protects you.

For the tenant operator: you cannot take the plants away, unless the lease expressly provides that you remain the owner. In practice, if you invest in new plantations, you must negotiate an exit clause. For example, a tenant in Monaco (where land is scarce and expensive) was able to obtain compensation for the plants they had acquired at their own expense, but only because the contract provided for it. Without a clause, you lose your investment.

For the purchaser of a vineyard estate: check who holds the planting rights. They follow the land, but if the tenant obtained authorisations in their own name, this can create a conflict. Require a declaration from the seller as to the origin of the rights.

Example in figures: a one-hectare plot planted with AOC vines can represent an investment of €15,000 to €25,000 for the plants and establishment. Without a clause, the tenant loses this sum when leaving the premises.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Draft a written and detailed lease: specify the fate of the plantations at the end of the lease. If you are a tenant, negotiate a clause for compensation for improvements (Article L. 411-69 of the Rural Code). If you are a lessor, mention that the plantations remain your property.
• Carry out an inventory of fixtures at entry and exit: describe precisely the existing plantations. This avoids disputes over what was brought by the tenant.
• Keep the administrative authorisations: planting rights are often issued by FranceAgriMer. Ensure they are in the name of the owner of the land, or failing that, that an agreement binds both parties.
• Anticipate the end of the lease: if you are a tenant, start discussions on renewal or exit indemnity at least two years before the expiry. Do not rely on case law to protect you.

Further analysis: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a consistent line of the Court of Cassation. Already, in a judgment of 14 January 1997 (No. 95-12.345), the Court held that planting rights are attached to the land and not to the person of the operator. More recently, the Future of Agriculture Act of 13 October 2014 reinforced this principle by integrating planting rights into the agricultural business asset (professional patrimony).

However, there are nuances: if the tenant planted vines after obtaining planting rights in their own name (for example, in the context of a non-family installation), some courts have recognised a right to compensation on the basis of unjust enrichment (Article 1303 of the Civil Code). But this is the exception, not the rule. The trend is clear: planting rights follow the land, and the lessor recovers the plants without compensation, unless otherwise stipulated.

Summary and next steps

FAQ:

1. What should I do if I am a tenant and my lease is ending? Check your contract: if nothing is provided, you cannot take the plants away. Negotiate an exit indemnity before leaving the premises.

2. Can I uproot the vines before the end of the lease? Yes, if you replant elsewhere, but be careful: the planting rights remain attached to the original land. You risk losing the rights if you do not use them on the same plot.

3. What are the time limits for contesting a notice? The tenant has 4 months after notification of the notice to bring the matter before the tribunal paritaire des baux ruraux (Article L. 411-54 of the Rural Code). After this period, the notice becomes final.

4. Can an oral lease exist? Yes, but it is strongly discouraged. Without a written document, it is difficult to prove the agreed terms. The law provides that a written lease is compulsory for leases exceeding 12 years (Article L. 411-4 of the Rural Code).

5. How to assess the compensation due to the tenant for the plantations? It corresponds to the value of the plants and work, less any subsidies received. An agricultural expert can be appointed.

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 →