Pre-emption is a privilege in property sales that allows a person to replace the buyer under specified conditions. The first thought that comes to mind is the right of the adjacent neighbor. However, according to Article 921 of the Qatari Civil Code, the adjacent neighbor’s right is ranked last, preceded by:
1) The owner of the property with a corresponding usufruct right.
2) The co-owner in joint ownership.
3) The usufructuary.
4) The owner of the property in a leasehold.
Therefore, Pre-emption is a privilege that, when exercised by the claimant (neighbor), allows them to acquire property sold by its owner to another. The term “privilege” means that Pre-emption is not an inherent right, neither in rem nor personal. It does not transfer to heirs, cannot be assigned, and creditors of the claimant cannot use it in their name. However, it can lead to the acquisition of an in rem right.
If the landowner sells their property, the adjacent neighbor (the claimant) gains a legal position that allows them to reclaim the sold land by unilaterally declaring their intention to exercise the right of Pre-emption, thereby stepping into the buyer’s position.
This means that exercising the right of Pre-emption is a way to acquire property, but not through monetary means. Pre-emption is only valid in cases of property sale; it does not apply to other means of acquiring property, such as inheritance, accession, prescription, will, partition, settlement, or gift. Even in cases of sham sales, Pre-emption does not apply.
Article 923 of the Civil Code restricts the situations in which Pre-emption cannot be exercised, even after the sale is completed. These include sales between ascendants and descendants, between spouses, or when the property is sold to be used as a place of worship.
According to Article 927 of the Civil Code, a pre-emption claim must be filed within 15 days from when the claimant becomes aware of the sale. However, Article 933 specifies that if the claimant does not express their intent to exercise Pre-emption within six months of the sale’s registration, it is assumed, without the possibility of rebuttal, that they were aware of the sale. The registration serves as official notice, extending the period for claiming Pre-emption to six months from the registration date.
Since the two articles mentioned above set two deadlines for the claimant to express their intent to exercise Pre-emption—either 15 days from the date they became aware of the sale or six months from the registration of the sale—what happens if the claimant claims they were unaware of the sale after six months have passed since the contract was registered?
We handled a case in which the claimant made such a claim. Acting as the buyer’s representative, we argued that the six-month deadline had passed. Meanwhile, the claimant insisted that they were unaware of the sale and had expressed their intent to exercise Pre-emption within the 15-day period.
Are these two legal provisions contradictory, and do they lead to complications in judicial applications in courts?
We will answer this in the next article.
