Updated on 2 September 2026: takes into account Law No. 2026-796 of 18 August 2026 (separate notification of non-contiguous properties, right of visit, new pre-emption deadlines).
The question of the SAFER's power over the sale price of agricultural land raises many questions among owners of rural and agricultural land. Contrary to a widespread belief, the SAFER cannot impose a sale price. It does, however, have a right of pre-emption with the possibility of a price revision, but the seller always retains legal options when faced with this procedure.
The Sociétés d'aménagement foncier et d'établissement rural (SAFER), which are private companies entrusted with a public service mission, benefit from a right of pre-emption established by Article L143-1 of the Rural Code. This right allows them to acquire certain properties on a priority basis when they are sold, as part of their public interest missions.
When the SAFER considers that the price envisaged for the sale is higher than the actual value of the land, it may exercise its right of pre-emption with a price revision. This pre-emption with a counter-offer on price is justified when the price set is deemed "excessive" in relation to local market conditions.
The SAFER has two months from the notification sent to it by the seller's notaire to submit a purchase offer with its proposed price. This procedure requires the approval of the Government commissioners, thereby guaranteeing State oversight of the exercise of this right.
To justify a price revision, the SAFER must demonstrate that the price is "excessive", in particular in light of the prices charged in the region for properties of the same kind. This assessment takes several elements into account: the indicative scale of agricultural land prices, local benchmarks and an on-site appraisal.
This consideration of local market prices is part of the land market regulation mission entrusted to the SAFERs. The aim is to prevent land speculation and to keep prices consistent with the actual value of the land.
It is often difficult for an owner to have a real knowledge of the local market, whereas the SAFER has all the information on the local market at its disposal.
When faced with a SAFER pre-emption with a price revision, the seller has three legal options:
This freedom of choice is a significant limit on the SAFER's power. The seller thus has the option of withdrawing from the sale rather than accepting a price he considers insufficient.
If the seller remains silent for a period of six months from the notification of the SAFER's offer, he is deemed to have accepted the proposed price. This tacit acceptance is a legal trap that should be avoided.
However, recent case law specifies that the seller may withdraw the property from sale at any time during the judicial price revision procedure, even before the judge has ruled. This possibility gives the seller a further opportunity to abandon the transaction.
When the seller contests the price proposed by the SAFER, he may refer the matter to the Tribunal de grande instance of the place where the property is located. This court procedure allows for a judicial revision of the price under Article L.412-7 of the Rural Code.
The court then has the power to set the market value of the property following an expert appraisal. This procedure guarantees an objective and adversarial assessment of the price, thereby protecting the seller's rights.
Recent case law from the Cour de cassation (ruling of 8 July 2025) confirms that the seller may withdraw the property from sale at any time during the judicial price revision proceedings. This option may be exercised without having to go through the notaire in charge of drawing up the deed.
This important decision strengthens the seller's rights in the face of the pre-emption procedure. It prevents a seller from being forced to sell at a price he has not accepted, even while court proceedings are under way.
While the seller can indeed refer the matter to the Court to contest the merits of the price revision, this does not come without a major drawback: the length of court proceedings.
The above-mentioned Cour de cassation ruling of 8 July 2025 concerns a proposed sale that was notified to the SAFER in August 2010.
It therefore took 15 years for this procedural point to reach an almost final settlement (a ruling from the Court of Appeal is still pending).
In practice, it is very rare for a seller to go down the judicial route in this situation, since he will be unable to sell his property until the courts have ruled. Who would be willing to wait 10 years or more?
In practice, when the SAFER proposes a significant price revision, the majority of sellers choose to withdraw their properties from sale rather than accept the revised price. This situation creates a deadlock: neither a sale nor a forced acquisition.
This market reality illustrates the limits of the SAFER's power. While it may propose a price revision, it cannot compel a reluctant seller to sell at a price he considers insufficient.
Several situations make it possible to avoid SAFER pre-emption. The right of pre-emption does not apply under certain conditions: sales within the family, transfers between co-owners, or when other purchasers benefit from a priority right.
Thus, the SAFER does not have a right of pre-emption in the case of the sale of leased agricultural land to the sitting tenant farmer who has been in place for at least 3 years.
Be careful, however: this option is not a way of circumventing the SAFER. It may in fact contest the validity of the lease on the grounds that it was signed for the sole purpose of evading its right of pre-emption. Moreover, the tenant farmer may simply abandon his purchase plans and remain a tenant for at least 9 years with a right to renew his rural lease.
The State, local authorities or the sitting tenant farmer may thus take precedence over the SAFER's right of pre-emption. These exceptions are legal means of avoiding SAFER intervention in certain property transfer transactions.
The SAFER pre-emption system is the subject of recurring criticism. Some observers denounce an overly broad power in setting prices, particularly when SAFERs carry out controversial "substitutions".
The FNAIM (the leading trade union of estate agencies) thus announced in 2025 that it was referring the SAFERs to the European Commission for abuse of a dominant position and illegal State aid.
This criticism also concerns the legitimacy of the power of revision and the impact of these practices on the land market. Some players in the agricultural sector believe that the SAFERs can put farmers at a disadvantage in their plans to acquire farms.
The powers of the SAFERs have been strengthened by recent legislative developments. These changes are intended to combat the loss of agricultural land and to strengthen control over the rural land market.
These new provisions extend the powers of the SAFERs, particularly in high-pressure areas, while maintaining the principle that the seller retains his options when faced with a price revision.
Law No. 2026-796 of 18 August 2026 on urgent measures for agricultural protection and sovereignty goes a step further. Its Article 37 requires the notaire, when a sale includes both pre-emptable properties and non-contiguous properties that are not (a house and distant land, for example), to send the SAFER two separate notifications, each with its own price. Each notification constitutes an independent pre-emption transaction: the SAFER can therefore pre-empt the land alone, including with a price revision, without the seller being able to require it to also buy the house. This right to require the purchase of the whole remains for contiguous properties, as well as for listed or registered historic monuments and remarkable gardens.
The same article creates a right of visit for the SAFER, which suspends the pre-emption period until the visit takes place or the owner refuses (the SAFER then has at least one month), extends from five to ten years the period during which a building that has had an agricultural use remains pre-emptable, and from two to five years the residual usufruct period allowing the pre-emption of a bare ownership. The principle remains unchanged: when faced with a price revision, the seller retains the choice of withdrawing his property, accepting or referring the matter to the court. But the scope over which the revision can be exercised has widened. We analyse this reform in detail in our article Partial SAFER pre-emption: what the 2026 law changes.
The SAFER cannot impose a sale price. Its power is limited to proposing a price revision as part of its right of pre-emption, but the seller always retains the choice of accepting, refusing or referring the matter to the court. This significant limitation on the SAFERs' power guarantees that the transfer of ownership cannot take place against the seller's will, even though the seller must comply with certain procedures and deadlines in order to exercise his rights. The price revision therefore remains a tool for regulating the land market, but not a means of absolute coercion over owners of rural and agricultural properties.
No, the SAFER cannot impose a sale price. It may propose a downward price revision if it considers the price excessive, but the seller always retains the choice of accepting, refusing or referring the matter to the court.
The SAFER has 2 months from receipt of the notaire's notification to exercise its right of pre-emption. Beyond that, its silence amounts to a waiver.
No. The right of pre-emption mainly applies to properties located in protected agricultural zones or with an agricultural use. Some properties located in urban areas may escape this prerogative.
The SAFER must assess and prove that the price is "excessive" compared with the prices charged on the local market for similar properties. It must give reasons for its decision and obtain the approval of the Government commissioners.
The seller has 6 months from notification of the counter-offer to respond. Beyond that, he is deemed to have tacitly accepted the proposed price.
Yes, according to recent Cour de cassation case law, the seller may withdraw the property from sale at any time during the judicial price revision proceedings.
If the SAFER has pre-empted at the agreed price, the sale is legally complete. If you refuse to sign, the SAFER may summon you before the court to compel completion of the transfer.
If the SAFER has pre-empted at the agreed price, the sale is legally complete. If you refuse to sign, the SAFER may summon you before the court to compel completion of the transfer.
Yes, the SAFER is authorised to exercise its right of pre-emption over only part of the properties sold, under Article L. 143-1-1 of the Rural Code.
However, the seller may require "that it purchase all of the properties being transferred." Furthermore, "if he accepts the partial pre-emption, he may require" the SAFER to "compensate him for the loss in value of the properties not acquired".
Please note: since 20 August 2026, these guarantees no longer apply to non-contiguous properties. Land that does not adjoin the house being sold is the subject of a separate notification and may be pre-empted on its own, without the seller being able to require the purchase of the whole or claim compensation (see our article on partial pre-emption and the 2026 law).
Sales within the family (in particular between parents and descendants) benefit from exceptions to the right of pre-emption. However, these exceptions are strictly regulated by law.
