Court of Ascoli Piceno, sentence n. 140/2023 of 03.14.2023 – Agricultural Preemption: non-existent. A blade of grass is not enough to be Direct Farmers

“Having planted alfalfa once a year and having cut it to feed its animals bred for family consumption does not make a subject a direct farmer ..”

The story:

The story was inspired by the legal action brought by two spouses who, claiming to be in possession of the subjective and objective requisites required by the agricultural preemption, and deducing that they had been pretermined in their rights as pre-emptives, summoned the purchaser of a property with lands partly bordering them, assisted by the lawyer Alessandra Amatucci, in order to exercise the redemption action of the said properties, after declaring the ineffectiveness of the deed of sale. The plaintiffs also invoked the exercise of the agricultural pre-emption under the lease contract concerning some land purchased by my client.

The buyer of the building with land appeared with the patronage of the undersigned attorney, contesting in fact and in law the existence of the quality of "direct farmer", necessary for the purpose of exercising the redemption action, and also noted that the contract of land lease invoked by the plaintiffs in order to enforce the pre-emption right had largely expired at the time of the sale agreement. However, the defendant buyer summoned the seller of the building with land in order to exercise the guarantee for eviction pursuant to and by effect of art. 1476, 1483 and 1485 of the civil code

The third vendor call was brought before the court, which concluded with the rejection of the spouses' application, due to the lack of the qualification of direct farmer, as well as the objective requirement.

The sentence:

The Court of Ascoli Piceno, in the person of Dr. Enza Foti, with sentence no. 140/2023 of 03.14.2023, with excellent motivation, adhering to the arguments in fact and in law of the lawyer Alessandra Amatucci, rejected the claim of the plaintiffs, pointing out the failure to demonstrate the requisites pursuant to the law required for the exercise of the agricultural pre-emption, ordering the plaintiffs to reimburse the legal fees to the client assisted by the legal writer.