The issue of SAFER's power to set the sale price of agricultural land raises a number of questions for owners of rural and agricultural land. Contrary to popular belief, SAFER cannot impose a sale price. It does, however, have a right of pre-emption with the option of revising the price, but the seller always retains his legal options when faced with this procedure.
The Sociétés d'aménagement foncier et d'établissement rural (SAFERs), which are private companies but have a public service remit, have a right of pre-emption under article L143-1 of the French Rural Code. This right enables 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 real value of the land, it can exercise its right of pre-emption with revision of the price. This pre-emption with counter-offer is justified when the price set is deemed to be "exaggerated" in relation to local market conditions.
The SAFER has two months from the date of notification by the seller's notary to make an offer to purchase the property, including a proposed price. This procedure requires the agreement of the Government commissioners, thereby guaranteeing State control over the exercise of this right.
To justify a price revision, SAFER must demonstrate that the price is "exaggerated", particularly in relation to prices charged in the region for similar properties. This assessment takes several factors into account: the indicative price scale for agricultural land, local references and a field survey.
Taking account of local market prices is part of the SAFERs' mission to regulate the land market. The aim is to avoid land speculation and to keep prices in line with the real value of the land.
It is often difficult for an owner to really know the local market, whereas the SAFER has all the information on the local market.
In the event of a pre-emption by the SAFER with a revised price, the seller has three legal options:
This freedom of choice constitutes an important limit on the power of the SAFER. The seller thus has the option of abandoning the sale rather than accepting a price that he or she considers insufficient.
If the seller remains silent for a period of six months from 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 states that the seller may withdraw the property from the sale at any time during the judicial price review procedure, even before the court has given its ruling. This possibility gives the seller a new option to withdraw from the transaction.
If the seller disputes 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 legal procedure allows for a judicial review of the price in accordance with article L.412-7 of the French Rural Code.
The court then has the power to set the market value of the property after an expert appraisal. This procedure ensures that the price is assessed objectively and in the presence of both parties, 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 the sale at any time during the judicial price review procedure. This option can be exercised without the seller having to go through the notary responsible for executing the sale.
This important decision strengthens the seller's rights with regard to the pre-emption procedure. It ensures that sellers are not forced to sell at a price they have not accepted, even if the legal proceedings are underway.
While the seller may indeed take the matter to court to contest the validity of the price adjustment, this is not without a major drawback: the time required for legal proceedings.
The aforementioned Court of Cassation ruling of 8 July 2025 concerns a proposed sale that was notified to the SAFER in August 2010.
It has therefore taken 15 years for this procedural point to be settled almost definitively (we still have to wait for a ruling from the Court of Appeal).
In practice, it is very rare for a seller to take legal action in this situation, as they will be unable to sell their property until the courts have reached a decision. Who would be prepared to wait 10 years or more?
In practice, when SAFER proposes a significant price revision, most sellers choose to withdraw their property from sale rather than accept the revised price. This situation creates a stalemate: neither sale nor compulsory purchase.
This market reality illustrates the limits of SAFER's power. While it can propose a price revision, it cannot force a reluctant seller to sell at a price it considers insufficient.
There are several situations in which SAFER's right of pre-emption can be avoided. The right of pre-emption does not apply under certain conditions: family sales, sales between joint owners, or when other buyers have priority.
For example, SAFER's right of pre-emption does not apply to the sale of agricultural land leased to a farmer who has been in place for at least 3 years.
However, this option is not a way for SAFER to circumvent the sale. The SAFER can challenge the validity of the lease on the grounds that it was signed for the sole purpose of evading its right of pre-emption. Alternatively, the farmer can simply abandon the purchase and remain a farmer for a minimum of 9 years, with a right to renew the rural lease.
In this way, the State, local authorities or the incumbent farmer can override the SAFER's right of pre-emption. These exceptions are legal ways of avoiding SAFER's involvement in certain property transfers.
The SAFER pre-emption system has been the subject of recurrent criticism. Some observers claim that the SAFERs have too much power to set prices, particularly when they make controversial 'substitutions'.
In 2025, for example, the FNAIM (the leading estate agents' association) took SAFER to the European Commission for abuse of a dominant position and illegal state aid.
These criticisms relate in other ways to the legitimacy of the power of review and the impact of these practices on the land market. Some players in the agricultural sector believe that SAFERs can put farmers at a disadvantage in their plans to acquire farms.
The powers of SAFERs have been strengthened by recent legislative changes. These changes are aimed at combating the consumption of agricultural land and strengthening control over the rural land market.
These new provisions extend the powers of the SAFERs, particularly in areas where the land is under pressure, while maintaining the principle that the seller retains his options in the event of a price revision.
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 taking the matter to court. This significant limitation on the powers of the SAFERs ensures that the transfer of ownership cannot take place against the will of the seller, even if the latter must comply with certain procedures and deadlines in order to exercise his rights. Price review therefore remains a tool for regulating the land market, but not a means of absolute constraint on owners of rural and agricultural property.
No, SAFER cannot impose a sale price. It can propose a downward price adjustment if it considers the price to be excessive, but the seller always retains the choice of accepting, refusing or taking the matter to court.
The SAFER has 2 months from receipt of the notary's notification to exercise its right of pre-emption. After this time, the SAFER's silence will be deemed to constitute a waiver.
No. The right of pre-emption applies mainly to properties located in protected agricultural areas or used for agricultural purposes. Certain properties located in urban areas may be exempt from this prerogative.
The SAFER must estimate and prove that the price is "exaggerated" in relation to local market prices for similar properties. It must give reasons for its decision and obtain the agreement of the Government commissioners.
The seller has 6 months from notification of the counter-offer to react. After this time, the seller is deemed to have tacitly accepted the proposed price.
Yes, according to recent Court of Cassation case law, the seller may withdraw the property from the sale at any time during the judicial price review procedure.
If the SAFER has pre-empted the property at the agreed price, the sale is legally complete. If you refuse to sign, the SAFER can take you to court to reiterate the sale.
If the SAFER has pre-empted the property at the agreed price, the sale is legally complete. If you refuse to sign, the SAFER can take you to court to reiterate the sale.
Yes, the SAFER is authorised to exercise its right of pre-emption over only part of the property sold, under article L. 143-1-1 of the French Rural Code.
However, the seller may require the SAFER to "acquire all of the property sold". Furthermore, "if he accepts partial pre-emption, he may demand" that the SAFER "compensate him for the loss in value of the property not acquired".
Family sales (between parents and descendants in particular) benefit from exceptions to the right of pre-emption. However, these exceptions are strictly regulated by law.
