Tijdschrift voor Agrarisch Recht - Volume 85, Issue 5, 2025

Current developments in the areas of nature and climate result in the need for agricultural entrepreneurs to take measures. It is advisable to investigate in advance whether tax facilities containing (continuation) periods were used in previous years and whether these periods have expired in the meantime. This “looking back” is not limited to just a few years. It may be necessary to go back in time for 12 years. This is in connection with the after-tax period for transfer tax when transferring beneficial ownership (Section 20(4) Awr).

At the same time, plans for the future should be examined. For example, a drastic change in business operations could result in a new possession period for the BOR taking effect, as a result of which a business transfer would have to be postponed in order to comply with this new possession period. An examination could therefore cover a very long period of 15 years.

This advisory report focuses on the legal challenges faced by agricultural businesses that wish to change, relocate, or cease operations. It examines the legal opportunities and risks for farmers in implementing their plans, with a focus on topics such as odor, health, nitrogen, and pesticide use. The report highlights that the agricultural sector faces increasing pressure on the limited space available in the Netherlands, where continuing operations is no longer a given. The interests of third parties, such as nearby residents, will increasingly influence the future of these businesses. While the trend is that fewer options are available, the focus is on identifying opportunities, such as the flexibility regarding odor regulations. At the same time, the report outlines the challenges that farmers may face in the future, such as the impact of public health on the expansion of agricultural businesses.

The theme of the annual meeting of the Association for Agricultural Law in 2025 is “Farmers in 2025: change, move or quit?”. Due to various developments, both social and legal, the average farmer today will ask himself the question whether his business can be continued in the future in the same way and/or at the same location. If this question must be answered in the negative, a farmer basically has three options: change, relocate or quit. This article highlights these options from the perspective of agricultural tenancy law. In the context of “change,” it discusses the criterion of commercial farming, the possibilities for multifunctional farming, the scope for changing the destination, layout or form of the leased property, and the legal possibilities for review by the agricultural tenancies authority. In the context of “relocation”, termination or modification of the agricultural lease, relocation due to dissolution of the agricultural lease and the (possible) limitations of the Didam-judgments are discussed. Finally, the relevant aspects are described in case a farmer wants to cease his agricultural activities. Among other things, the regulations for farmers who want to discontinue their business, the melioration fee and obligations in the context of delivery are discussed.