By Dean Kalimniou
On 28 May 2025, the Court of Appeals of the Arab Republic of Egypt delivered a comprehensive and consequential ruling spanning 160 pages, in relation to the property entitlements of the Sacred Autonomous Royal Monastery of Saint Catherine, located in the spiritually charged and historically layered landscape of South Sinai.
The decision introduces a nuanced legal matrix, engaging with questions of ecclesiastical patrimony, statutory land tenure, and the evolving interface between ancient custodianship and the imperatives of the modern nation-state. Notwithstanding the monastery’s continuous presence since the sixth century, the court’s reasoning accentuates the inherent friction between inherited religious tenure and contemporary frameworks of property administration.
At the centre of the adjudication lies the interpretation of Law No. 114 of 1946, which regulates the operation of the real estate registration system in Egypt. This legislation codifies the requirement that proprietary rights are recognised solely upon formal registration in the state’s cadastre.
In 1980, following a ministerial initiative inviting entities in possession of undocumented holdings to declare them, the monastery submitted seventy-one such declarations, encompassing a range of sites within and proximate to its perimeter—chapels, agricultural lands, and ancillary monastic structures—all forming part of an enduring continuum of sacred occupation.
The present dispute was precipitated in 2015, when the Governorate of South Sinai commenced proceedings asserting that the properties identified in the declarations were, in law, the property of the state. While initial trilateral consultations involving the Monastery, Egyptian authorities, and the Hellenic Republic appeared to yield an agreement acknowledging the monastery’s factual possession and uninterrupted use, the final version of the accord, presented by the Egyptian state, was materially at variance with prior understandings. The revised terms, publicly rejected by Archbishop Damianos, Abbot of the Monastery, resulted in the collapse of negotiations and the revival of judicial proceedings.
The Court of Appeals’ decision appears to rest on a bifurcated foundation. On one hand, it recognises the monks’ ongoing right to inhabit, maintain, and perform religious functions within the core precincts of the monastic enclosure. On the other, it determines that lands beyond these bounds—particularly those lacking formal registration—are to be subsumed into the public domain. The court’s reasoning draws upon relevant provisions of the Egyptian Civil Code, which postulates that land not evidenced by formal private title is presumptively the property of the state.
In particular, Articles 87 to 90 of the Civil Code establish the parameters of public domain property, identifying lands designated for public utility or deemed of historical, cultural, or environmental import. The court appears to have applied these provisions expansively, encompassing monastic outbuildings, remote chapels, agricultural plots, and hermitages within this classification.
Additionally, the judgment appeals to principles of administrative law, arguing that the preservation of heritage assets and environmentally protected zones constitutes a legitimate state interest capable of superseding proprietary claims unaccompanied by formal documentation.
This juridical construction exposes a divergence between formal statutory criteria and the lived realities of religious stewardship. For over fifteen centuries, the Monastery of Saint Catherine has exercised continuous care over its environs, not merely as a locus of liturgical observance, but as custodian of a broader sacred landscape. Though unregistered under modern Egyptian law, this tenure has been acknowledged, implicitly or otherwise, by successive regimes—Byzantine, Islamic, Ottoman, colonial, and republican alike.
The invocation of the nulla titulus principle—whereby lands lacking registered title are deemed state property—reflects a formalist approach to ownership. Critics, however, argue that this position inadequately reflects the role of customary rights which have historically been recognised in the Egyptian legal tradition, particularly in respect of long-standing religious or tribal claims grounded in continuous, uncontested possession.
The implications of this decision extend beyond the immediate case. Religious institutions across Egypt—whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish—whose property holdings predate the imposition of modern cadastral practices may find themselves similarly exposed. The judicial reasoning raises concerns that the tacit understandings underpinning religious landholdings may be vulnerable to erosion, potentially undermining a historically entrenched ethos of ecclesiastical autonomy observed across centuries.
The judgment is further marked by the absence of any reference to the Ashtiname of the Prophet Muhammad, a document traditionally regarded as conferring protective status upon the monastery and affirming its autonomy. While its contemporary legal enforceability remains a matter of scholarly debate, its symbolic authority is undeniable. That the court did not engage with this foundational historical instrument, nor with broader principles of legal continuity in relation to sacred custodianship, constitutes a conspicuous lacuna in its deliberations.
In its official statement, the Egyptian State Information Service characterised the decision as a technical clarification of land tenure rather than a derogation of religious liberty. It emphasised that the monastery’s spiritual functions remain unimpaired, and that access to sacred and archaeological sites has been preserved. Nonetheless, the redefinition of monastic property as a category distinct from spiritual function—a demarcation now embedded in legal precedent—has elicited apprehension from ecclesiastical authorities.
From the perspective of international law, the ruling raises possible issues of compliance with instruments such as the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, both of which have been ratified by Egypt. Although the present matter arises outside the context of armed conflict, the underlying conventions impose on signatory states an obligation to protect religious and cultural institutions that embody intangible traditions, including liturgical rites and long-standing stewardship.
Diplomatic reverberations have already been felt. The ruling has introduced strain into Egypt’s relations with the Hellenic Republic and, more broadly, the Eastern Orthodox Christian world. The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in response to the judgment, has announced a comprehensive review and dispatched Foreign Minister Giorgos Gerapetritis to Cairo for high-level consultations.
For the Greek state, the Monastery of Saint Catherine constitutes not merely a religious establishment, but a cultural institution deeply enmeshed in the legacy of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem.
Ecclesiastical responses have been unambiguous. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has expressed its dismay, calling upon Egyptian authorities to reinstate the Monastery’s traditional property rights in accordance with long-established interfaith precedent. Archbishop Elpidophoros of America has characterised the decision as a threat to religious liberty, cautioning that it could set a precedent with repercussions for similarly situated institutions elsewhere.
Canonically, the monastery’s position is singular. Though autonomous in its internal governance, it remains under the spiritual authority of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. This distinctive status, spiritual and juridical alike, may warrant a bespoke legal framework within the Egyptian system—one capable of recognising historical custodianship not as a matter of symbolic deference, but as a category deserving of legal protection.
In the immediate future, two avenues present themselves. The first entails the negotiation of a bilateral agreement between Egypt and the Hellenic Republic, together with the Orthodox Church, that would confer upon the Monastery a special legal status reflecting its historical function and ecclesiastical identity. The second envisions legislative reform allowing for the registration of religious properties on the basis of continuous historical tenure, irrespective of documentary title.
Absent such measures, the ruling risks introducing lasting complications into interfaith relations, undermining Egypt’s reputation for religious pluralism, and diminishing the juridical assurances previously extended to non-Muslim institutions. While the Egyptian authorities stress that no religious function has been impaired, the symbolic loss of land represents a substantive contraction of the Monastery’s historical autonomy.
