CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 juin 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 109 June 2008 Gauchin v. France - 7801/03 Judgment 19.6.2008 [Section V] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Control of the use of property Inability of the owner to recover possession of let agricultural land at the end of the lease owing to a decision by the courts to grant the tenant permission to assign the lease to his son: no violation   Facts : The first applicant, a farmer and owner of agricultural land, leased several pieces of land to a farmer and his wife for a period of twelve full, consecutive years. Together with his son, the second applicant, also a farmer, the first applicant set up a farming partnership to farm the family land. When the first applicant retired the second applicant continued to farm the land with his mother. The tenants’ lease was tacitly renewed. They requested the first applicant’s authorisation to assign the lease to their son, but received no answer. The first applicant gave them notice to vacate all the land concerned in conformity with the Countryside Code. The tenants brought an action against the first applicant before the agricultural land tribunal to secure authorisation to assign the lease to their son. The first applicant served them with a second notice, annulling and replacing the first. This notice was served primarily because the tenants would have reached retirement age by the time the lease expired; in the alternative so that the second applicant and his mother could recover the land; and in the further alternative so that the second applicant could recover it for his own use. The tenants challenged the two notices in succession before the agricultural land tribunal. The tribunal validated the second notice because of the tenants’ age and to enable the owners to recover the leased land, noting that the applicant and his mother would otherwise be farming no more than 46   hectares each, which was not in their interest. It accordingly ordered the tenants to vacate the land. The tenants appealed and the second applicant intervened in the proceedings on his own initiative. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment in respect of the notice served on account of the tenants’ age but set aside the remainder and authorised the transfer of the lease to the son. The applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation on points of law and submitted a supplementary memorial arguing that the Court of Appeal had not ruled on the grounds for the notice based on the recovery of the leased land and challenging the reasons which had led that court to authorise the transfer of the lease. The appeal was rejected. The first applicant had notice served on the tenant at the date of expiry of the renewed lease, to recover the land for the benefit of the second applicant. And in order to be able to farm the land at issue upon expiry of the lease, the second applicant applied to the prefect for prior authorisation to farm the land, but was refused.   Law : The questions of the existence among the second applicant’s assets of a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, and of his victim status for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, were closely connected. They were therefore to be examined together. Even assuming that the second applicant, who intervened in the domestic proceedings as the designated recipient of the land, could be considered a victim, he could complain of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 only in so far as the proceedings he challenged concerned possessions to which he was entitled for the purposes of that provision. However, the first applicant was the sole owner of the disputed plots of land and, as such, the only holder, under the Countryside Code, of the right to recover the land or refuse to renew the lease. Furthermore, domestic law attached no legal effect to the fact that the second applicant had been designated as the possible recipient of the leased land with a view to farming it, and in that capacity he could claim no right or debt in his own name under the domestic law or case-law. He could therefore not claim title to an actual possession or to a payable debt. Accordingly the second applicant had no title to a real and substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: incompatible ratione personae.   Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 – The application of the Countryside Code by the domestic courts, making it impossible for the first applicant to recover the disputed land when the lease expired, amounted to control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.It was not disputed by the parties that the interference in question was provided for by law, namely the provisions of the Countryside Code.As to the aim pursued, the Court accepted the Government’s argument that those provisions pursued an aim in the public interest, which was to guarantee the tenant farmer security of tenure to put his investments to profitable use, and to support medium-sized farms as a development model for French agriculture by facilitating transfer from one generation to another. The Court’s duty was also to consider whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued; in other words, it should seek to determine whether a balance had been struck between the demands of the general interest and the interest of the individual or individuals concerned. In so doing, the Court recognised that the State enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement were justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question. In order to guarantee the stability of the farm, French law provided for a minimum duration for a lease and for the right to renew it when it expired. It also encouraged continuity in the family by providing for the tenant farmer to be able to assign the lease to his or her spouse or descendant, with the owner’s permission or the authorisation of a court. However, the owner had the right to refuse to renew the lease in certain circumstances, including the legitimate reasons listed in the Countryside Code, the tenant’s age, or to farm the land himself or for his spouse or descendant to farm it. In addition, where there were conflicting interests, as in the present case, French law provided procedural guarantees for the owner, as it was for the agricultural land tribunal and the Court of Appeal to rule on applications to transfer leases or to recover leased land.In this case, before authorising the transfer, the Court of Appeal had first made sure that the operation would not harm the legitimate interests of the owner, within the meaning of the Countryside Code, by verifying in detail whether the tenants had fulfilled all their obligations under the lease, such as paying the rent and properly farming the land. It then considered whether the assignee met the requisite conditions in terms of diplomas and professional experience and had an administrative authorisation to farm the land. Only after verifying all these conditions had the court authorised the transfer of the lease.Lastly, although the first applicant had been unable to recover his land when the lease expired, he did receive rent for it which he had not alleged was insufficient.That being so, bearing in mind the margin of appreciation in the matter, a fair balance had been struck between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the first applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Conclusion :no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes