Facts
The present case concerns the application of the new provisions of the Federal Act on Rural Land Law (LDFR) in an ongoing procedure. In 1995, L. and N.Y. as well as D. and M.Z. (hereinafter "Y. and associates") acquired a parcel of agricultural land in co-ownership, obtaining the authorization to acquire provided for in Articles 61 and 67 LDFR. In December 1995, they terminated the sharecropping contract from which the tenant, X., benefited.
X. appealed against the authorization to acquire, a procedure that was suspended until 1999. In the meantime, the LDFR was amended on June 26, 1998, entering into force on January 1, 1999. The Cantonal Court of Valais then applied the new, more favorable provisions for the purchasers, rejecting X.'s appeal.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal dismissed X.'s appeal against this decision. It considered that Article 95 para. 2 LDFR, which provides for the application of the new law to ongoing procedures, cannot be interpreted in a general way to apply to any subsequent amendment of the law. In the absence of an express transitional provision, the Federal Tribunal applied the general principles of transitional law, in particular Article 2 of the Final Title of the Civil Code.
According to these principles, when a law is amended during a procedure, the authority must compare the interests at stake. If the new law…