Right of first refusal and redemption of the neighbor engaged in farming activities

The neighbor’s right of first refusal and redemption, already discussed above, arises in the hands of the direct farmer who meets the requirements of Art. 8 l. 590/1965 at the time of putting up for sale the land adjoining one or more plots of land owned by him.

As is well known, the first requirement of the rule is the possession by the neighbor of the subjective status of direct cultivator, as identified by the provisions of Art. 31 of the same l. 590/1965 and it is precisely this requirement that needs further analysis in the case under discussion here.

The aforementioned article, in fact, merely defines direct cultivators as “those who directly and habitually devote themselves to the cultivation of the land and to the raising and tending of livestock, provided that the total labor force of the family unit is not less than one-third of that required for the normal necessity of the cultivation of the land and for the raising and tending of livestock,” thereby making it appear that the rancher is also, without a shadow of a doubt, entitled to exercise the right of pre-emption as a direct cultivator, provided that the additional and different requirements set forth by the legislature are met.

On the subject, dating jurisprudence, recently confirmed, has had the opportunity to analyze in more detail what should be meant by a direct grower from the perspective of the recognition of the right of first refusal and the legitimacy to exercise the agrarian retract.

Although the general definition of direct cultivator also recognizes as such those who raise and herd livestock, in fact, a joint analysis of Articles 8 and 31 of Law 590 of 1965 shows that the status of direct cultivator of the neighboring land must be understood in a restrictive sense, that is, properly functional to the cultivation of the land, in compliance with the rationale underlying the institution of preemption and the exercise of retraction.

Neighbor land preemption, specifically, is directed at the amalgamation of land in order to improve the profitability of the land and to form larger and more technically and economically efficient direct-cultivation enterprises, thus enshrining the need for there to be a strong link to the farmer’s direct cultivation of the land.

For these reasons, the existence of the right of first refusal must be considered excluded in the case of those who carry out, on the neighboring land, the activity of raising and governing animals exclusively or predominantly, so much so as to absorb the entire labor force of the farm, and so that any cultivation activity carried out on residual parts of the land is considered residual and irrelevant, even for the purpose of producing food and the output of the animals.

To the contrary, therefore, it follows that if the livestock farming activity is instead connected to, and not separate from, the cultivation activity of the land, the underlying rationale for preemption would be respected, as the retraction of the neighboring land would pursue the purpose of expanding the territorial size of the direct cultivating farm.

Attorney Chiara Roncarolo

Attorney Maurizio Randazzo