Extract
[...] It cannot therefore justify an early termination. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided by the landlord of the inscription of this project in an opposable urban planning document, nor of the existence of an ongoing administrative procedure. The respect of the 18-month notice period cannot suffice in the absence of a legal basis for termination. Finally, the landlord's real intention seems to fit into a logic of purely personal takeover, or perhaps a landscape conversion, which does not relate to a general interest or a planned territorial policy. [...]
[...] However, these proposals raise legitimate concerns about a possible regression of the rights of tenants8. The Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE), in its opinion « From the sun to the land: functions to uses, what land policy? adopted on 25 January 2023, strongly emphasizes the need to preserve soils and agricultural land, recalling that any artificialization must remain the exception to protect the soil's food, environmental, and social functions. This opinion confirms that the legal precaution principle, applied to rural law, must ensure a high level of protection for rural leases, reserving attacks on the right to exploit to the strict necessary. [...]
[...] Finally, the termination procedure must be formalized. The lessor must notify their intention to terminate within the framework of an 18-month notice period before the expiration of the current lease. This notification must be sent to the tenant by registered letter with request for acknowledgement of receipt or by extrajudicial deed. In default, the termination is inopposable. This triple framework aims to limit opportunistic or speculative terminations, ensuring effective protection for the tenant and ensuring consistency with the territorial development choices made by local authorities. [...]
[...] This termination mechanism for urbanism is therefore an exception to the rule of contractual stability, and it must be strictly interpreted. It translates the search for a balance between two imperatives: the securing of agricultural activity and the need to allow certain projects of general interest on land initially intended for agricultural use. II- The current regulation of the termination of the rural lease for urbanism It will be a matter here, on the one hand, to present the legal framework set by Article L411-32 of the Rural Code and the formal requirements that follow for the lessor and, on the other hand, to analyze how the jurisprudence frames the interpretation of this provision, particularly in the case of afforestation before studying the legal qualification of afforestation in light of the notion of change of destination The legal framework of Article L411-32 of the Rural Code: a legally framed exception Article L411-32 of the Rural Code and the Maritime Fishing Code allows for the early termination of the rural lease for urbanism and provides : « The lease can be terminated by the lessor if the land is intended to receive a non-agricultural designation in accordance with a local urban plan or a document of equivalent effect. [...]
[...] The logic of the legislator was then to prioritize a durable access to the land rather than precarious leases, in order to encourage long-term investments by farmers. This model allowed the development of a modern and mechanized agriculture in France, while curbing land speculation. The evolution of the territorial context: the emergence of an exception due to urbanism However, the stability of the sharecropping status has not prevented the emergence of new land tensions. From the 1970s, territorial planning policies have introduced the need to reserve certain lands for uses other than agricultural (urbanization, public equipment, infrastructure . [...]
