By Markos Bolaris (*) –
(The following is the text of an URGENT letter addressed to Members of the European Parliament)
I am writing to draw your attention to a matter which, in my respectful opinion, deserves urgent parliamentary scrutiny before the European Union proceeds further with its strategic engagement with Egypt.
The issue concerns Saint Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai, one of the oldest continuously functioning Christian monasteries in the world and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This matter has often been presented in the press as a domestic property dispute. Having followed the matter closely and having received direct information regarding recent developments, I believe there are substantial grounds for parliamentary scrutiny.
The questions now arising extend well beyond ownership of land. They concern respect for international law, freedom of religion, the rule of law, legal certainty, the protection of historic property rights and, ultimately, the credibility of the European Union’s own commitment to these principles in its external relations.
The information presently available suggests that the Monastery is confronted not with a single legal dispute, but with a cumulative series of judicial and administrative measures that risk fundamentally altering its institutional autonomy and may ultimately result in the effective confiscation of long-established proprietary rights.
The Egyptian State has itself initiated litigation challenging the Monastery’s historic proprietary rights. At the same time, the Archbishop-Abbot, although canonically elected approximately ten months ago, has still not received the presidential decree traditionally required for his civil recognition. The Monastery reportedly continues to encounter difficulties regarding recognition of its legal personality, with practical consequences affecting its institutional functioning, including access to its bank accounts and the inability to execute notarial powers of attorney required for effective legal representation. Members of the monastic community reportedly continue to depend upon short term renewable residence permits despite belonging for many years to a religious institution that has existed uninterruptedly for approximately fifteen centuries.
Taken individually, each of these matters may appear administrative. Considered together, however, and viewed in the context of litigation initiated by the State itself, they raise legitimate questions as to whether the Monastery is presently able to defend its historic rights under conditions consistent with the rule of law and the principle of equality before the courts.
The rule of law requires that every litigant be capable of participating in judicial proceedings with recognised legal personality, effective legal representation, recognised institutional leadership and genuine freedom to decide whether or not to conclude a settlement. Where these conditions are absent, serious questions naturally arise regarding equality of arms, effective access to justice, a fair trial and the ability to negotiate any settlement freely and without coercion.
Particularly troubling is the timing of these developments. According to information brought to my attention, the Monastery has been presented by the Egyptian authorities with a draft settlement agreement recognising the Egyptian State’s claimed ownership on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, without any meaningful opportunity for negotiation. Based on the same sources, the monks have been informed that the outcome of the final hearing before the Court of Cassation scheduled for 23 August (following which the litigation is expected to reach its definitive conclusion without any further ordinary judicial remedy) has effectively already been determined. Unless they conclude the proposed settlement, the monks will receive none of the—still undefined—rights of use that Egypt proposes to confer through a later annex to that agreement.
If these reports are accurate, they raise obvious questions as to whether any relinquishment of historic property rights could genuinely be regarded as voluntary, or whether it would instead amount to the surrender of property under conditions of legal and institutional coercion. These circumstances also raise legitimate concerns as to whether the Monastery is presently able to enjoy a fair hearing and effectively defend its legal position before the highest judicial authority of the country.
These developments also raise broader issues under international law.
***
The International Legal Framework
Egypt has itself formally declared before UNESCO that the Monastery is the property of the Greek Orthodox Church, belongs to the Archdiocese of Sinai, is self-governed and independent under the administration of its Archbishop-Abbot, and that the monastic life within its walls is itself under protection. These are not historical assertions advanced by the Monastery but official declarations made by Egypt within the UNESCO World Heritage framework.
They are difficult to reconcile with a legal position whereby the Egyptian State now asserts ownership of the Monastery’s patrimony while, simultaneously, the institutional autonomy of the Monastery appears progressively to be diminished through the absence of legal personality, the nonrecognition of its elected Archbishop-Abbot and the precarious legal status of its monastic community.
Equally, Egypt is bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including Article 18, protecting freedom of religion or belief. International standards recognise that freedom of religion extends beyond the right to conduct worship and encompasses the institutional autonomy necessary for religious communities to appoint their leaders, administer their property, organise their internal affairs and preserve their permanent religious presence free from arbitrary State interference.
A religious institution cannot meaningfully enjoy freedom of religion if it is unable to recognise its own leadership, administer its patrimony, maintain its legal personality or ensure the permanent presence of its religious community.
If a State were able to appropriate the historic patrimony of a living religious institution while simultaneously assuming control over its sacred buildings and religious assets, such a precedent would raise profound questions concerning freedom of religion, the protection of religious minorities and the peaceful enjoyment of property under international law. Its implications would extend well beyond Saint Catherine’s Monastery…
The cumulative developments described above therefore raise questions not merely concerning a property dispute but concerning Egypt’s obligations under international law, the rule of law and internationally recognised human rights’ standards.
***
The European Law Concerns
These issues assume particular importance in light of the European Union’s deepening strategic partnership with Egypt. They are also directly relevant to the European Union’s own obligations under Articles 2, 3(5) and 21 of the Treaty on European Union, which require the Union’s external action to be guided by respect for human rights, the rule of law and international law.
Only a few days ago, the European Commission announced its positive assessment of Egypt stating progress with “concrete and reliable steps”, inter alia, for a state of law and the respect of human rights, fulfilling the conditions for further financial support of 1.5 billion euros. It remains unclear whether the Commission was fully informed of these developments when conducting its assessment.
At the same time, the proposed GREGY Interconnector has become one of the flagship projects of EU–Egypt strategic cooperation financed by the European Union. In this respect, I respectfully draw your attention to Article 11 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001, which expressly requires that joint renewable-energy projects with third countries take place “in full respect of international law.” This requirement cannot be regarded as merely declaratory. Where credible questions arise concerning a partner State’s compliance with international obligations relating to religious freedom, property rights, legal certainty and the rule of law, it is legitimate for the Parliament to ask whether those matters were adequately assessed before strategic projects benefiting from Union political or financial support proceed further.
It is also noteworthy that, on 1 June 2025, respected Italian journalist Francesco Battistini, writing in Corriere della Sera and citing diplomatic sources, reported that the future of Saint Catherine’s Monastery had become intertwined with broader geopolitical discussions surrounding the GREGY interconnector. Whether or not that assessment ultimately proves correct, it reinforces the need for transparency whenever strategic EU-supported infrastructure projects and allegations concerning compliance with international law appear capable of intersecting.
***
In light of the irreversible nature of the proceedings expected on 23 August, I respectfully invite you to consider urgent parliamentary scrutiny of these developments before the European Union deepens its strategic engagement with Egypt.
In particular, I respectfully invite you to consider:
• requesting that the European Commission clarify whether these developments were taken into account in its recent assessment of Egypt;
• seeking clarification from the Egyptian authorities regarding the legal status of the Monastery, the recognition of the Archbishop-Abbot and the reported conditions under which settlement discussions are taking place;
• requesting disclosure of the proposed settlement agreement in order to determine whether any proposed relinquishment of the Monastery’s historic property rights has any direct or indirect connection with projects benefiting from European Union political or financial support, including the GREGY Interconnector;
• examining whether the requirements of Article 11 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 are fully satisfied in the context of ongoing strategic energy cooperation with Egypt;
• encouraging the European institutions to monitor closely the proceedings before the Court of Cassation on 23 August, given their potentially irreversible consequences for one of the
world’s oldest continuously functioning religious communities.
____________________
(*) Markos Bolaris, a Lawyer, Former Member of the Greek Parliament andFormer Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
