The SAFER (société d’aménagement foncier et d’établissement rural, the French rural land agency with a pre-emption right over farmland sales) pre-empts a sale of agricultural property, offering a price well below the notified price. The seller asks the court to revise that price and then, while the proceedings are pending, decides not to sell. Can the seller still withdraw the property, and must this go through the notaire (French civil-law notary)? The reported decision of the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) of 28 November 2024 answers that a seller who has applied to the court within six months may withdraw the property at any stage of the proceedings, without going through the notaire. The valuation therefore serves to decide as much as to argue.
The facts
On 27 August 2010, SAFER Maine Océan, whose rights have since passed to SAFER Pays de la Loire, received notification of a planned sale of agricultural property by a couple, at a price of €490,000. On 22 October 2010, it sent the notaire instructed to draw up the deed its pre-emption decision, together with a purchase offer at €307,000.
On 20 April 2011, the sellers sued it for annulment of the pre-emption and, in the alternative, for judicial revision of the price. The husband died in 2012. In submissions discontinuing the proceedings dated 22 May 2015, the surviving seller stated, according to the findings of the appeal decision, “that she ultimately intended to withdraw the property from sale” (translated from the French, as are all quotations below). The discontinuance was recorded by an order of the pre-trial judge of 21 March 2016, which became final.
On 21 September 2016, the SAFER sued the seller to have the sale in its favour declared complete, at the price and on the terms of its pre-emption. The ANGERS Court of Appeal, on 9 May 2023, found for the SAFER at the price of €307,000: the withdrawal had to take place within the six-month period and be notified to the SAFER by that notaire, and the seller could no longer exercise any option after 25 April 2011.
The decision
The Cour de cassation quashed the decision (Cass. 3e civ., 28 November 2024, appeal no. 23-18.746, reported), under article L. 143-10 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishing Code (Code rural et de la pêche maritime), as worded by the Law of 27 July 2010, and article R. 143-12 of the same code, as worded by the Decree of 11 December 1992.
It recalled the mechanism. Where the SAFER considers “that the price and the conditions of the sale are excessive, in particular in the light of the prices paid in the region for property of the same kind”, it sends the seller’s notaire a purchase offer on its own terms. A seller who refuses it “may either withdraw the property from sale or request a revision of the proposed price” from the court; a seller who remains silent for six months is deemed to have accepted it. Once the court has fixed the price, either party may still renounce the transaction. The regulatory provision states that a withdrawal decided within the six months is notified to the SAFER by that notaire.
It then laid down the rule: “Where the seller has applied to the court for judicial revision of the price within the six-month period provided by these provisions, he may, at any stage of the proceedings, even before the decision fixing the market value of the property, withdraw it from sale, without being required, in order to inform the SAFER, to go through the notaire instructed to draw up the deed.”
By requiring a withdrawal within six months and through the notaire, the Court of Appeal breached these provisions. The quashing is partial: the admissibility of the SAFER’s action seeking a declaration that the sale was complete stands. For the rest, the case was sent back to the RENNES Court of Appeal.
Two limits frame the scope of the decision: the rule assumes an application to the court within six months, and the Court did not decide the dispute itself. The provisions are applied as worded at the time of the facts.
What this changes for valuation
The revised price is discussed against regional references. The SAFER assesses whether the price is excessive “in particular in the light of the prices paid in the region for property of the same kind”, and the court fixes the market value of the property. In practice, the discussion rests on comparable sales of farmland, meadows, woodland or farm buildings, in the same area and at close dates. The Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière (French property valuation charter, 6th edition, November 2025, Title III, § 2.1) recalls that the comparison method “is the reference approach for determining market value” and states: “Any discount or premium applied must be justified.” A farmstead calls for a valuation by component: house, outbuildings, land, each with its own references.
The choice stays open throughout the proceedings. Within six months of the offer, the seller accepts it, withdraws the property or goes to court; during the proceedings, the seller may withdraw the property at any time; after the judgment, either party may renounce. An independent valuation as soon as the offer is received places the agreed price and the SAFER’s price against the market. If the proceedings are lengthy, as here with more than four years between the summons and the withdrawal submissions, a dated update shows whether it is still worth continuing.
The stakes are measured by the gap. Between the notified price, €490,000, and the price at which the Court of Appeal had declared the sale complete, €307,000, the gap reaches €183,000, more than 37% of the notified price. The report, with its valuation date, its references and its written reservations (Charter, Title I, § 2.2), is the document that allows this gap to be discussed, in court as well as when deciding.
Neighbouring rules not to be confused. This decision concerns the seller’s withdrawal. The form of the revised-price offer, in particular the reference to the government commissioners’ agreement in the notification, is the subject of another decision: SAFER pre-emption: stating the commissioners’ consent is enough. In urban pre-emption, the withdrawal of the holder of the right after judicial fixing of the price follows article L. 213-7 of the French Planning Code: Pre-emption in France: withdrawal not late while appeal pending. For the evicted buyer, see SAFER pre-emption: no notice, no time limit for the challenge.
What the valuer takes from it
- A seller who has applied to the court within six months may withdraw the property at any stage of the proceedings, even before the market value is fixed, without going through the notaire.
- Without acceptance, withdrawal or an application to the court within six months, the seller is deemed to have accepted the SAFER’s offer.
- In practice, the revised offer and the value fixed by the judge are discussed against sales of property of the same kind in the region, at close dates, component by component.
- Lengthy proceedings call for an updated value, with its own date, before choosing between continuing and withdrawing the property.
Further reading
The Compulsory purchase and pre-emption page describes the assignment and its fee. The guide Producing a valuation in a French court: which format to choose? and the glossary entries droit de préemption, valeur vénale and méthode par comparaison complement this article. On the revised-price offer itself: SAFER pre-emption: stating the commissioners’ consent is enough. On the same theme: SAFER pre-emption: no notice, no time limit for the challenge and SAFER pre-emption: fifteen days run from the exact address. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
Has the SAFER pre-empted your sale at a lower price?
I value the land and the buildings from sales in the region, so that you can compare the SAFER's offer with the agreed price and decide, with your notaire or your lawyer, between pursuing the price revision proceedings and withdrawing the property. Quotes are free, by email or by phone.
Free quote, by email or by phone. No commitment before the quote is accepted. Fees are never linked to the value of the property (Charte de l’expertise, Title I, §2.1).
