Agricultural Contracts and Leases: Analysis of Ordinance No. 9725 of 2024

The agricultural sector is characterized by a series of specific contracts, including the lease of rural land. Recently, Ordinance No. 9725 of April 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addressed the issue of qualifying grazing contracts and the distinction between agricultural leases and the sale of grass. In this article, we will analyze the key points of this ordinance and its implications for the parties involved.

The Legal Issue

The Court addressed the issue of qualifying a contract as an agricultural lease, establishing that to be considered as such, it must meet certain fundamental requirements. In particular, the ordinance emphasizes that:

• The duration of the contract must be multi-year.
• There must be a use that goes beyond the simple harvesting of grass.
• The cultivation activity must arise from a specific agreement between the parties and not from unilateral initiatives.

Generally. For the purpose of qualifying a contract as an agricultural lease and not as a sale of grass (so-called "pascipascolo"), it is necessary that the essential elements of the contractual type, namely the multi-year duration and the use exceeding simple grass harvesting, are expressions of negotiated activity and that, therefore, the cultivation activity exceeding that of mere grass harvesting constitutes the result of a specific agreement between the parties and not of a unilateral initiative.

This maxim highlights the importance of the parties' negotiating intent, which must be explicit and well-defined. The Court, also referencing provisions such as Article 56 of Law No. 3 of May 1982, clarified that the mere harvesting of grass cannot be considered an agricultural lease if not supported by an agreement providing for a broader and more structured use.

Practical Implications

The repercussions of this ordinance are significant for agricultural sector operators. In particular, lease agreements must be drafted with particular care to ensure they meet the requirements established by the Court. This implies:

• Careful definition of the contractual duration, ensuring it is longer than one year.
• Clear specification of permitted activities, which must go beyond mere harvesting.
• Accurate documentation of the agreements between the parties, to highlight the negotiated intent.

In the absence of these requirements, there is a risk of incorrect contract qualification, leading to legal problems and potential disputes.

Conclusions

Ordinance No. 9725 of 2024 represents an important guide for the correct drafting and management of agricultural contracts. Knowing the essential requirements for their validity is not only a competitive advantage but a necessity to avoid disputes and ensure the stability of commercial relationships in the agricultural sector. Farmers and landowners must therefore pay the utmost attention to specific regulations and case law interpretations to effectively manage their contracts.