Extension of the single compendium

Legislative Decree. March 29, 2004, no. 99, expressly in co.1^ of Art.5-bis reads, “unless otherwise provided for by regional laws, single compendium means the extent of land necessary to achieve the minimum level of profitability determined by the regional rural development plans for the disbursement of investment support provided for in Regulation (EC) No. 1257/1999 and Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999, as amended.”
In view of the above, in the absence of express regional regulations, the question arises as to whether the said extent of land required to constitute the single compendium is to be considered as a “maximum” limit to be reached and not to be exceeded, or as a “minimum” limit.
To hold this limit as a “maximum” could actually defeat the purposes the legislature intended: to create medium- to large-scale agricultural enterprises.
Such an interpretation would, moreover, pose serious enforcement problems when there are areas that slightly exceed said limit or consist of whole parcels of land that would have to be fractionated.
Considering such a limit as a “minimum” to be reached would bring for the direct farmer the problem of maintaining his own aforementioned qualification: exceeding a certain limit he would lose this qualification, while since there is no similar limitation for the professional farmer, he could constitute in compendium of very large areas of land.
In fact, the legislature, by expressly referring to the level of profitability, intended to have regard to the economic size of the enterprise, but always related to a concrete functional use of the fund. Therefore, excessively large compendiums would lose this functional nexus and, moreover, because of the indivisibility restriction inherent in the compendium, could constitute a hindrance to the movement of land for a decade from the establishment of the compendium itself, and this would be clearly and significantly detrimental to the economy.
In view of the above, it seems preferable to set up several compendiums of a size that can withstand competition but, in order to enable their profitable use, not excessively large and as such more easily transferable in their entirety, given the constraint of indivisibility.
It is noted that the Piedmont Region, in the “Instructions for the application of regulations related to Legislative Decrees nos.99/04 and 100/05,” approved by D.G.R. no. 107-1659 of Nov. 28, 2005, specifies that “the single compendium as set by Article 7 of Legislative Decree No. 99/04 is obtained when the minimum profitability threshold set by the Rural Development Plan (RDP) adopted pursuant to EC Reg. No. 1257/99 by the Piedmont Region is reached, even as a result of several acts of transfer.”
In the absence of express regional provision, it seems tuzioristically more appropriate to consider this limit as a “maximum limit” not to be exceeded, especially considering that, should the Region, where the purchased land is located, opt for this solution, or should
the relevant revenue agency did not find the broad interpretation agreeable, there could be particularly onerous tax consequences with regard to the excess area purchased with the single compendium benefits.
Moreover, in the case previously envisaged, there would be the additional problem of the persistence of the transcription of the indivisibility bond, which is deemed irrevocable because it transcends the interests of the one who constitutes the unique compendium.
Legislative Decree. 101/2005 provided:
– That land and related appurtenances owned as property may contribute to the attainment of the minimum level of profitability;
– That the establishment of the single compendium may also be made with reference to agricultural land and its appurtenances already owned by the party, by unilateral declaration of the owner made before a notary public in the form of a public deed.
It is also pointed out that, according to the law, agricultural land that is not adjacent to each other can be established as a single compendium as long as it is functional for the operation of the agricultural enterprise. However, functionality must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with reference to the type of agricultural activity being carried out. By way of example, it is noted how this requirement was deemed to exist with reference to a mountain pasture located 50 km from the farm center in the case of a livestock farm that practiced transhumance of livestock.
Conversely, the purchase of an arable land at a similar distance was found to be non-functional for the operation of the enterprise, since such land to be reached and worked involved irrational entrepreneurial choices with reference to the displacement of machinery and increased operating costs.

Attorney Chiara Roncarolo

Attorney Maurizio Randazzo