Vineyard co-ownership: a single holding despite several owners

Imagine: you own, with your two cousins, a few hectares of vines in Six-Fours-les-Plages. Each of you has inherited a parcel, but you cultivate them all together, without any particular formality. One day, the authorities accuse you of having planted vines without authorisation, exceeding the allocated planting rights (administrative authorisation). You defend yourself by claiming that each parcel is distinct. But what does the law say?

This is precisely the question the Court of Cassation had to decide in 1965. At the time, the wine statute (regulation of wine production) strictly limited new plantings. The X brothers, co-owners (joint owners) of several parcels of vines, had planted 5.94 hectares without sufficient rights. Their defence? Each parcel belonged to different persons, so each planting should be judged separately. But the Court did not follow this reasoning.

In this article, we will dissect this decision and see what it means for you, whether you are a winegrower, landowner or simply a private individual faced with co-ownership (a situation where property belongs to several persons).

The facts: a story like any other

We are in the 1960s, in the Var, between Fréjus and Six-Fours-les-Plages. The X brothers jointly farm parcels of vines inherited from their parents. These parcels are held in co-ownership: none of the brothers is the exclusive owner of a given parcel; each holds a share (part) of the whole. They cultivate together, without any physical separation of the vineyards.

In 1962, the Indirect Contributions authority (predecessor of the DGCCRF) inspected them and found that they had planted 5.94 hectares of vines without holding the corresponding planting rights. However, according to Article 48 of the Wine Code (now codified in the Rural Code), new plantings are subject to authorisation, and rights are calculated per holding, i.e., per group of land farmed by the same farmer, whether that land is his exclusive property or held in co-ownership.

The brothers contested: they argued that each parcel, being in co-ownership, constituted a separate holding. For example, parcel No. 35, also co-owned between them, should have benefited from its own planting right. They argued that thus, each brother would have been entitled to an individual authorisation, which would have allowed them to plant legally.

The case went to the criminal court, then the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, which convicted them for unlawful planting. The brothers appealed to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation dismissed their appeal: it confirmed that parcels of vines, co-owned by several persons who farm them jointly, constitute a single holding within the meaning of Article 48 of the Wine Code. It does not matter that each parcel is co-owned by the same persons: what matters is the unity of the holding.

The reasoning of the court — broken down

In its judgment of 24 November 1965, the Court of Cassation relied on Article 48 of the Wine Code (now codified in Article L. 665-5 of the Rural Code). This provision states that "new plantings of vines are prohibited" except by administrative authorisation granted within the limit of planting rights allocated to each holding. The concept of holding is therefore central.

What does "single holding" mean? The judges identified three criteria: unity of ownership (the parcels belong to the same persons), unity of management (they are cultivated jointly), and unity of purpose (the grapes are vinified together). In this case, the X brothers farmed their 5.94 hectares collectively: they used the same equipment, the same workers, and sold the wine under the same brand. Therefore, it is a single holding, and planting rights must be calculated globally, not parcel by parcel.

The defendants tried to circumvent the rule by invoking the co-ownership of each parcel. But the Court replied that co-ownership does not create a separate holding for each parcel. In other words, just because you are co-owner of a vineyard with your neighbour does not entitle you to an additional planting quota. The administration was therefore right to accuse them of a global overrun of rights.

In short, this decision confirms that wine law (and by extension rural law) prioritises economic reality (the actual farming) over legal structure (ownership). This is consistent case law, since repeated in many judgments.

What this means for you — practically

For landlord owners: if you lease your vines to a tenant farmer (agricultural lessee), the holding is that of the tenant, not yours. You cannot combine your personal planting rights with those leased. Example: in Fréjus, an owner leases 2 hectares to a winegrower. He also owns 1 hectare which he farms himself. Planting rights will be calculated separately: 1 ha for his personal holding, and 2 ha for that of his tenant. Be careful not to confuse.

For purchasers: if you buy vines in co-ownership with others, check carefully the planting rights attached to the existing holding. You do not acquire a right to plant a new parcel, but only a share of a holding. undefined, I have come across cases where purchasers thought they could plant additional vines, unaware that the rights were already exhausted by the joint holding. Result: fines and an obligation to grub up the new plantings.

For winegrowers in co-ownership: you must declare your holding as single to the administration (FranceAgriMer). The calculation of planting rights (or replanting authorisations) is done globally. If one co-owner wishes to plant on a parcel he considers "his own", he must obtain the agreement of the others and ensure that the holding has sufficient rights. Numerical example: suppose the holding is entitled to 0.5 hectares of new planting per year. If three co-owners each want to plant 0.3 ha, they exceed the quota and risk sanctions.

In summary, this decision imposes a global view of the wine-growing holding, which secures the administration but may surprise unwary owners.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Set up a farming company: if several of you are farming vines in co-ownership, create an EARL (limited liability agricultural business) or a GAEC (joint farming group). This clarifies the concept of a single holding and facilitates administrative procedures.
• Declare your holding from the start: with FranceAgriMer, indicate precisely all the parcels farmed, even in co-ownership. Do not leave any parcel "under the radar", as the administration can go back up to 5 years.
• Keep your planting right documents: each authorisation, each replanting must be traceable. In the event of an inspection, you will need to prove that you have not exceeded your rights. A simple list of parcels with the corresponding rights can save you.
• Consult a lawyer lawyer before any planting: if you are unsure about the classification of your holding (single or multiple?), it is better to seek legal advice. The cost of a consultation (a few hundred euros) is negligible compared to fines and the obligation to grub up illegally planted vines.

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

Further reading: related case law and developments

The 1965 decision is part of a consistent line. For example, the Court of Cassation ruled in 1978 (Civ. 3e, 11 July 1978, No. 76-15.123) that parcels leased to the same tenant constitute a single holding, even if the landlords are different. Conversely, if an owner leases his vines to several different tenants, each tenant has his own holding.

More recently, case law has integrated developments in European law: since 2016, the planting rights regime has been replaced by a system of planting authorisations, but the principle of a single holding remains. Courts continue to apply the same logic: the holding is defined by unity of management and production, not by ownership.

What this means for the future: with the development of producer groups and cooperatives, the question of a single holding could arise in an even more complex way. But the rule remains simple: if you farm together, you are a single holding.

Frequently asked questions

1. What is a single holding within the meaning of the Wine Code?
A single holding is a group of land (vines) farmed by the same person or same group, with common management (equipment, labour, marketing). Ownership may be individual or in co-ownership, but the holding is single if it is run collectively.

2. Can I plant vines on a parcel I own alone if I farm it with my brother on other parcels?
Yes, but be careful: the planting rights of your joint holding will be calculated globally. If you plant on your personal parcel, it counts towards the quota of the joint holding, unless you farm that parcel separately (as a distinct holding).

3. What should I do if the administration accuses me of exceeding planting rights?
You can challenge: prove that the parcels constitute separate holdings (separate accounts, distinct equipment, different labour). But if you farmed jointly, your chances are low. It is better to negotiate a settlement or regularise by requesting a late authorisation (if possible).

4. What are the risks in case of unlawful planting?
Fine of up to €15,000 per hectare unlawfully planted, obligation to grub up the vines, and loss of future planting rights. In some cases, criminal prosecution for fraud.

5. How can I prove that my holding is distinct from that of my neighbour in co-ownership?
You must demonstrate independent management: separate bank accounts, distinct CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) declarations, use of different equipment, separate marketing. A mere de facto sharing is not enough.

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