Question 18054 — woods and forests

Summary

Mr. Christophe Naegelen draws the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food to the sale of wooded plots and more specifically to the dissociation between the sale of the soil (land) and the sale of standing timber existing on this soil. These two operations are the subject of two separate contracts; on the one hand, a contract concerning standing timber and on the other hand, a contract relating to wooden soil. The problem that arises is in particular that of the exercise of the pre-emption rights of the State and the municipality as well as the preferential rights of neighbors. Indeed, it is possible to wonder whether the purge should concern the sale of soil and wood or only the sale of soil. Furthermore, in the case of a company which would like to be able to acquire standing timber without the right of pre-emption or preference being exercised over the soil and timber, but only on the land, he wonders if it can invoke the following arguments: firstly, the sales, on the one hand of soil and on the other hand of standing timber, were the subject of two separate sales contracts (the seller and the buyer are the same in the two contracts which were signed on the same day); secondly, the quality of the purchasing company and its economic activity, because the purchase of standing timber then the sale of the timber cutting constitutes its main object while the sale of the land constitutes only a simple accessory; thirdly, the standing timber thus constitutes in the operation envisaged by the company furniture in anticipation in accordance with article 521 of the civil code, which would mean that their sale is not likely to fall within the scope of application of the various rights of pre-emption and preference applicable to matters of sale real estate. Finally, he wonders if we cannot consider this way of doing things as a fraud on pre-emption and preference rights. Indeed, by only offering the holders of pre-emption-preferential rights the soil, even though the wood is still planted there on the day of the sale, is this method not intended to encourage these holders to lose interest in the soil given the low interest it retains (wood which will be cut within a maximum of one year, damage to the bottom, etc.) and therefore indirectly to reject any pre-emption? He asks him for his opinion on these questions and thanks him for his answers which will provide information to the municipalities affected by such a situation.

Machine translation from French. The official text remains authoritative.

Timeline

No timeline events have been ingested for this record yet.

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.

Documents

No documents linked.

Sponsors

No sponsors or actors listed by the source.

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.