الطبيعة القانونية لحق المستفيد من المستثمرات الفلاحية

Abstract

Through this research we tried to treat the topic of : the judicial nature of the beneficairy’s right from the agrarian investment,it means the reform of the agrarian sector according to the law no87-19dated in December 8th,1978 ; wh ich includes the adjustment manner of agrarian lands’ exploitation relied to the national properties and the determination of agrarian electors’ rights and their duties known as « the law of agrarian investments » the matter that helped us to know the principles& new rules that this law has brought and the judicial problematics had emerged due to its application in the field,and we shall summe up the important onesas follow : 1- The judicial nature of the administrative contract constructing « the Agrarian Investment » : the legislator had granted to the beneficiaries on whom the mentioned terms of law no87-19 are adequate to them and according to an administrative contract a right of a constant beneficiary on all lands besides an annual tax determined by the financial law; and it is an individual real estate right available for transmission,desistance,and reculsion ;also the state desisted according to it on all properties refered to the investor –except the land wh erebyit explores the given real estate in form of collective agrrian investment as an individual exception (article from 6 to 9). And if we had not found a difficulty in adapting the purses’contract as an administrative contract relying on the article33 of law mentioned above ; besides the executive circularly no90-50 linked to the preparation of an administrative act ; but the difficulty was been about adjusting the judicial nature of this contract,which is considered as a compound act ; it consist –as it is noted above –of a primary act the state desisted in it with absolute property on all possessions of the investment, and a secondry act contains a purses of a constant beneficiary act,and if we did not found a difficulty in adjusting the first act as a selling act (article 7), then the conflict rised through the adaption of the second act ; it means the one case of costant beneficiary right,is it an act of selling or rent ?. We had seen that is not an act of a sale ;becuase the state did not desisted on all elements of the property ; when it kept the property supervision and the legislator did not treated the price’s topic, it cited only the little taxes, that are not suitable to the value of the of the constant beneficiary right ; in addition to this if the act is a selling, there will be no terms of exploitation lead to the unstability which falls the constant beneficiary right . As we have seen that is not an act of rent ; for the beneficiary right resulted from the purses’act as an eternal right ,whereas the beneficiary right