The case commented on illustrates, once again and in a topical manner, the challenges of applying the law of companies in difficulty to the particular situation of farmers in difficulty.
In this case, an agricultural amicable settlement procedure is opened for the benefit of a simplified joint stock company. However, one of its creditors contests its eligibility for this procedure, such a company having a commercial character in form. The judicial court seized then transmits two priority questions of constitutionality (QPC) to the Court of Cassation.
The first QPC aims to verify the compatibility with the principle of equality before the law of the provisions which deprive agricultural operations operating in the form of commercial companies of the benefit of the amicable agricultural settlement (C. rur., art. L. 351-1 and C. com., art. L. 611-5), the chosen method of exploitation thus leading to unequal treatment between agricultural structures. The second QPC aims to verify the compatibility, on the one hand, with the principle of equality before the law and, on the other hand, with the principle of clarity of the law and the objective with constitutional value of intelligibility and accessibility of the law, of the same provisions under the terms of which agricultural operations having adopted the form of commercial company are referred to the commercial court because of their commercial form and to the judicial court because of their agricultural activity. However, the court at the origin of the QPC considers that this could lead to depriving these farms of both the benefit of the amicable agricultural settlement and the conciliation procedure of Book VI.
Subjective approach to dealing with farmers’ difficulties
The agricultural amicable settlement procedure is “intended to prevent and resolve financial difficulties of agricultural operations as soon as they are foreseeable or…
