With the clock ticking toward the issuance of the Egyptian Court of Cassation’s decision on the Monastery of Saint Catherine of Sinai on October 24, and with vacillation and internal disputes within the Brotherhood having so far prevented an agreement between the Monastery and the Egyptian state, reports from Egyptian media concerning the recommendations of the two senior prosecutors handling the case foreshadow dramatic developments for the Monastery.

The fact, moreover, that according to information there will be no further postponement of the announcement of the Egyptian Court of Cassation’s decision has set off alarm bells. While Abbot Symeon is in Athens for health reasons, circles around the Monastery are reportedly attempting to undermine the continuation of the negotiations and the signing of an Agreement that would render the proceedings before the Egyptian Court of Cassation moot, since it provides that the Egyptian authorities will withdraw their appeal on points of law and accept the Agreement as the final settlement of the issue.

What Egyptian media reports say

According to a leak published on the Matsada2sh website, the recommendations of the two senior prosecutors of the Egyptian Court of Cassation regarding the two appeals on points of law against the decision of the Ismailia Court of Appeal—one filed by the Egyptian government and one by the Monastery—recommend that the Monastery’s appeal be rejected in its entirety, dismissing all the arguments put forward concerning the acquisition of ownership through adverse possession.

At the same time, they recommend that the Egyptian state’s appeal be partially upheld. This means that, if the Court accepts the prosecutors’ recommendation, the Monastery will lose another 10 properties, while the religious character of another 28 properties will be called into question, putting some or all of those 28 properties at risk of being lost. Naturally, an even more unfavorable decision for the Monastery’s interests cannot be ruled out, which could result in the loss of additional Monastery properties.

According to the reasoning of the Egyptian prosecutors, the case began when the government brought its lawsuit before the South Sinai Court of First Instance, case No. 24/2015, against the Monastery of Saint Catherine, seeking the recovery of 71 plots of land belonging to the Monastery and ordering it to pay the value of the proceeds derived from them, as well as compensation for the period of unlawful occupation.

The government authorities argued in their lawsuit that some of the disputed plots were state property and that the Monastery’s occupation of them had no legal basis, requesting their recovery.

For its part, the Monastery of Saint Catherine argued that its possession of the specific plots was not recent but had a long history, while some of the properties were historically connected with the Monastery and with its religious and cultural identity. It also argued that legal status, deeds and documents existed for some of the disputed properties.

During the proceedings, and through the experts appointed in the case, the nature and characteristics of each plot were examined, as was whether it was connected either with the Monastery or with religious or archaeological sites.

The South Sinai Court of First Instance examined the case for a number of years, heard the arguments of both parties and relied on expert reports concerning the nature of the disputed properties.

On May 30, 2022, the court issued its decision on the lawsuit, ordering the removal of those occupying all the plots and their return to the state, the demolition of unauthorized structures, the eviction of the monks and the payment of compensation to the state for their unlawful occupation by the monks.

The decision essentially amounted to the confiscation of the Monastery’s property, including the Monastery itself, and even denied the right to possess and use the religious sites, while many properties were deemed archaeological and historical areas subject to legislation governing protected natural areas.

However, this decision was not the end of the process, as both sides proceeded to the appeals stage, beginning a new round before the Ismailia Court of Appeal.

After a lengthy legal battle, on May 28, 2025, the Ismailia Court of Appeal issued its decision, which became the subject of the two appeals on points of law before the Court of Cassation. The decision ordered the removal of the Monastery from 29 plots of land, recognized the lawful possession and use of certain other plots because the Monastery produced the relevant deeds, offset the compensation claims against works carried out by the monks and therefore awarded no compensation to the Egyptian state, abolished the monks’ obligation to demolish “unauthorized structures,” and recognized the possibility of a right of use for religious purposes where this could be demonstrated.

Both Egyptian prosecutors reject the Monastery’s central legal argument that the entire proceedings should be dismissed because the original plaintiff was a private individual who had no legal interest, since he was not claiming possession or occupation of any of the Monastery’s properties.

Both argue that, regardless of this fact, the Court correctly proceeded to examine the substance of the case—namely, who is the true owner, holder and possessor under Egyptian law. They further argue that since the Monastery claims that the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and the Egyptian Ministry of Environment should have brought the action concerning the disputed land, this constitutes an indirect admission by the Monastery that ownership belongs to the Egyptian state.

The Prosecution pointed out that the decision being challenged on appeal is partially erroneous because the court did not examine the legality of the Monastery’s certificates of possession with respect to certain plots for which the Ismailia Court recognized that the Monastery was lawfully in possession, making a partial reversal of the decision necessary.

In its appeal, the Monastery’s defense focused on its centuries-old presence in the area, the character of the disputed plots as religious sites, and the existence of documents and deeds relating to a number of properties belonging to the Monastery. However, what has caused considerable puzzlement in Cairo and Athens is the fact that, while the Monastery began invoking the Achtiname (Covenant) of Muhammad after the Ismailia decision was issued as evidence of its property rights, it did not invoke it at any stage of the judicial proceedings, including before the Egyptian Court of Cassation.

The Egyptian side views this tactic as a publicity move because, although the Monastery invokes the Achtiname in publications and statements, it has never submitted it for the Court’s consideration. According to the Egyptian side, it did not do so because the Achtiname describes a general regime protecting the Monastery, the monks’ freedom of movement and the Monastery’s exemption from taxes, but says nothing specific about properties belonging to the Monastery.

In its memorandum to the Court of Cassation, the Monastery’s defense also raised the issue of applying regulations governing land on the Sinai Peninsula and whether Law No. 14/2012, concerning the development of Sinai, affected the previous legislation governing the legal status of the Monastery’s lands.

The Prosecution stressed that the issue concerns not merely the duration of possession but also the nature of the disputed property—namely, whether ownership may be acquired after the passage of time or not, particularly when the assets are connected with public property or land of a special legal character, such as protected areas. The Prosecution pointed out that public lands cannot become the property of a private party through adverse possession. Archaeological sites belong by definition to the state and cannot be acquired through adverse possession, regardless of its duration.

Therefore, the examination of each plot required its legal character to be taken into account, rather than merely the duration of possession or the length of time the monastery had remained on it.

Regarding the other legal argument—that the Monastery’s legal status predates Law 14/2012 on the “Development of Sinai”—the recommendation to the Supreme Court states that the “Sinai Development Law” prohibits ownership, usufruct rights and leases in a number of areas, including protected natural areas, archaeological zones and the areas surrounding them. The recommendation of the Court of Cassation’s Prosecution rejected this argument, clarifying that the Court of Appeal’s decision was not based from the outset, and not exclusively, on the Sinai Development Law.

The Prosecution further noted that the Court of Appeal reached the correct conclusion because it examined each plot separately, did not base its decision on the retroactive application of Law 14/2012 and, consequently, there is no legal error warranting the reversal of the decision.

According to the Egyptian prosecutors, the dispute does not concern the application or non-application of the Sinai Development Law, which prohibits private ownership throughout Sinai, but a broader issue: whether the monastery possesses a valid legal title to ownership or to possession and occupation of each disputed plot, apart from those that are monuments and therefore automatically belong to the State.

The Holy Sinai Brotherhood is aware of the court decisions, knows the direction in which the Egyptian Court of Cassation is likely to move, has negotiated the Agreement and its terms of implementation, and has the full support of the Greek Government. Now it is time for it to decide. And after four postponements of the Egyptian Court of Cassation’s decision, time is running out.