The judges, who find that the

Practical application:

Under the 1970 case, repossession is only valid if you genuinely and permanently participate in the farming. If you rely solely on third-party contractors without direct supervision or subordination, the repossession could be deemed fraudulent, and the former tenant may challenge it successfully. To proceed legally, you must demonstrate a real commitment to personally work the land, not just manage it remotely. Consult a French agricultural law specialist to structure your repossession in compliance with the ruling.

Practical application:

This case law protects you: if the owner does not actively and permanently engage in the farm work—evidenced by lack of livestock and reliance on third parties without hierarchical oversight—the repossession is fraudulent. Gather proof such as contracts between the owner and the service company, witness statements, and any evidence showing his absence from daily operations. Then, challenge the repossession in the local agricultural land tribunal (tribunal paritaire des baux ruraux) within the statutory time limit (typically 4 months). Keep all correspondence and documents to support your claim.

Practical application:

The 1970 ruling shows that repossession requires effective, personal, and permanent involvement in farming. Simply owning the land and outsourcing all work does not satisfy legal conditions; the tenant could block the repossession if you cannot prove genuine hands-on activity. Before buying, consult a notary or avocat spécialisé to verify the lease terms and assess the feasibility of repossession. Consider negotiating with the tenant for an amicable termination or explore alternative structures, such as a partnership, to avoid costly litigation and potential fraud allegations.