Subjective requirements and object of the unique compendium

In identifying the subjective requirements for being able to establish a single compendium, the legislature in the legislation on the single compendium refers to “those who undertake to establish a single compendium as a direct grower or professional farmer.” The legislature, however, contrary to the provisions on single compendium in the territories of mountain communities, for the granting of tax exemptions related to the establishment of the compendium does not require that the aforementioned subjective requirements exist at the time of purchase.
It can be inferred from the foregoing that, both at the time of the purchase of the land to be constituted into a compendium, and at the time of succession, that is, when the heir applies for the assignment, there need not be, on the part of the aforementioned, the qualification of direct cultivator or that of professional agricultural entrepreneur. It seems, therefore, possible to say that the rationale of the rule is based on the legislature’s desire to encourage investment in agriculture, to avoid the dismemberment of the compendium and to encourage young people to enter agriculture. In fact, the lack of reference to any previous agricultural activity is an incentive for young people to enter farming, allowing them to opt to start a farming business even if they do not have, at the time of purchase, the professionalism required to obtain aid under agricultural regulations.
As for, then, the subject of the single compendium the D. Lgs. March 29, 2004 no. 99 in the 2nd paragraph of Article 5-bis clearly speaks of “transfer to any title of agricultural land”; in the 3rd paragraph, referring to the closed farmstead, it mentions the “transfers of agricultural real estate and its appurtenances, including buildings, constituted in the closed farmstead”; finally, in the 4th paragraph it states that “Land and its appurtenances, including buildings, constituting the single compendium, are considered indivisible units.”
Having reached this point, it is necessary to determine whether the agricultural status of the land should be determined on the basis of the zoning designation given to the land by the Municipal Urban Plan, or with reference to its natural reality. According to one guideline, the actual use of the land should draw into the orbit of the relief even land that allows urban uses other than agricultural. However, in light of consistent practice, it would be problematic to claim, under this theory, relief for the purchase of land absolutely unsuitable for cultivation (e.g., rocky tract).
It seems, therefore, preferable to consider as excluded from the regulations under consideration those lands for which the urban planning instruments provide for construction use.
Part of the doctrine held that the criterion of physical reality prevailed, a criterion according to which what matters is the concrete agricultural vocation of the land, regardless of the qualification
urban planning.
As for buildings, if they are rural, they contribute to the formation of the single compendium by extending to them the existing rule on appurtenances (see Article 818 of the Civil Code). A further possibility of establishing a single compendium is that provided for in Article 11-quater, which states that it is possible to establish as a single compendium agricultural land and its appurtenances already owned by the party, without, however, the need for a concurrent purchase of agricultural land, and for the sole purpose of safeguarding the integrity of the farm.
This option may be exercised by a unilateral declaration by the owner contained in a public deed prepared by the notary before whom the declaration was made. Once again the legislature by using the expression “owned by the party,” suggests that it is not necessary that at the time of the establishment of the compendium the constituent must have the status of a direct grower or professional farmer.”

Attorney Chiara Roncarolo

Attorney Maurizio Randazzo