When and how did monasticism arise in Sinai? And when was St. Catherine's Monastery founded?

 

Monasticism in Sinai dates back to the third century AD, when monks were stationed in what is claimed to be the site of the burning bush where God spoke to Moses. Traces of churches and monastic cells in which the monks lived have been found throughout South Sinai.

Between 527 and 565 AD, Emperor Justinian I ordered the construction of a huge church for the monks of Sinai, surrounding the church and other pre-existing churches and buildings with high walls. He dispatched soldiers to build the church and its fortress, stipulating that they stay there to protect it. All the buildings and churches inside the fortress later became St. Catherine's Monastery. It is estimated that by the seventh century AD, about 600 monks had lived in the Sinai region.

Which church does St. Catherine's Monastery belong to?

 

St. Catherine's Monastery belongs to the Greek Orthodox Autonomous Archdiocese of Sinai, which has a historical relationship with the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece and a spiritual relationship with the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem. After the monks of the monastery elect their archbishop, who is also the archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Sinai, the patriarch of Jerusalem consecrates him.

Ever since obtaining its independence from the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1575, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Sinai has remained an autonomous Orthodox church.

When was the St. Catherine Area inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List?

 

The Egyptian Ministry of Culture applied for St. Catherine's Monastery and Mount Moses to be inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1998. Egypt prepared a plan for the sustainable development of the town of St. Catherine that same year, which UNESCO reviewed, recommending its implementation.
 

When the UNESCO World Heritage Committee visited St. Catherine, it proposed to annex a wider swath of areas surrounding the monastery, which would later be called the St. Catherine Area, because of its special and rare ecosystems.

In 2002, Egypt accordingly applied for the inscription of the St. Catherine Area, estimated at 60,100 hectares and designated as such at the UNESCO's request, on the World Heritage List.

What is the Great Transfiguration Project?

 

The Great Transfiguration Project was launched by the Egyptian government in November 2021 to market the town of St. Catherine globally as a destination for spiritual tourism, as a meeting place for the three Abrahamic religions. The project included the construction of a hotel next to the mountain and an eco-resort with 366 rooms, about 1500 chalets and villas, a conference hall, a ballroom, a theater, and a museum. It also included the construction of new residential and tourist areas, the development of old areas, and the improvement of roads and spillways. The project was to be completed by the end of 2022.

Who filed the case against the archbishop of St. Catherine's Monastery, and when? 

 

The legal dispute began on 30 November 2014, when the legal representative of the South Sinai Governorate and the legal representative of the St. Catherine municipality issued an ultimatum to Damianos I, the archbishop of St. Catherine's Monastery. The two government officials then filed a civil lawsuit with claims that were twice amended by correcting the lawsuit’s form.

What requests did the South Sinai Governorate and the St. Catherine municipality make in their case?

 

1. The eviction of the archbishop of St. Catherine's Monastery, in person and not in capacity, from 29 plots of land considered to be religious sites.

2. A ruling to retain the buildings and facilities built on these lands in return for their demolition value.

3. LE5 million in compensation from the archbishop for encroachment on these lands, which had led to the suspension of the two plaintiffs' right to use them.

Why and how did the plaintiffs correct the form of the lawsuit?

 

The form of the lawsuit was corrected for the first time to amend the claims, add other requests, and introduce new litigants into the case. The aim was to ensure that the case would be approved for being filed by a competent party, as the disputed lands are affiliated with the Ministry of Antiquities and the board chairman of the Environmental Affairs Agency, since the St. Catherine Area is a nature reserve.

During the process of correction, the plaintiffs did the following: 

• Added a request to evict the archbishop of St. Catherine's Monastery from 42 other plots of land, bringing the total number of contested plots to 71.

• Added a request for a ruling that the archbishop is not entitled in his capacity to claim the value of the facilities, plants, or crops on the land or claim compensation.

• Added a request to oblige the archbishop, in his capacity, to pay compensation of LE10 million for depriving the original plaintiffs (the governorate and municipality) of the use of those lands.

• Specified that the litigation is against the archbishop in his capacity and not as a person.

• Requested that the Minister of Antiquities, in his capacity as chairperson of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, and the board chairperson of the Environmental Affairs Agency, in his capacity, join the case as plaintiffs.

• Corrected errors in the numbers of the 29 plots of land mentioned in the main lawsuit.

The form of the lawsuit was corrected for the second time on 11 August 2020 to include the boundaries and specifications of the disputed plots.

Were there changes during the consideration of the case?

 

The plaintiffs sought to bring both the head and the director of the Survey Authority into the case. Ahmed Ragaey, a former military commander and founder of a group called the South Sinai Defense Front, set up in 2014 to contest the monks’ use of certain lands, also joined the case, demanding the implementation of demolition orders against the archbishop. Ragaey had long since run a media campaign against the monastery; he accused it of controlling large areas of South Sinai and denying residents access and use of these areas. For his part the archbishop, in his defence during the hearing, requested the title of the lands through acquisitive prescription.

When was the first-instance verdict issued and what did it find?

The first-instance verdict was issued by the South Sinai Court, in Case No. 24 of 2015 (Civil Full Court, Sharm el-Sheikh), on 30 May 2020. The court ruling:

• Rejected Ahmed Ragaey's intervention.

• Required the archbishop of St. Catherine's Monastery to hand over the 29 plots of land indicated in a court-commissioned expert report, with the structures built on them, considering the structures compensation for the non-use of the specified land from the date of its "usurpation" until the date of the judgment.

• Rejected all other requests, as the plaintiffs did not specify the exact locations of the 42 plots they had added when correcting the form of the case for the second time, and because the expert who prepared the report for the court was unable to inspect them.

The court found the 29 contested plots of land to be state property, some affiliated with the Ministry of Antiquities and others with the Ministry of Environment. The request to bring in both the head and the director of the Survey Authority on the plaintiffs’ side was rejected.

Who appealed the ruling and why?

 

The judgment satisfied neither the plaintiffs (the governor of South Sinai and the municipality) nor the defendant (the monastery), so each party filed an appeal and requests. The plaintiffs filed appeal No. 226 of 32, joined now by the Minister of Antiquities and the chairperson of the Environmental Affairs Agency. The defendant filed appeal No. 228 of 32.

The plaintiffs appealed against the rejection of their request to evict the archbishop from the remaining 42 disputed plots and the refusal to order compensation of LE10 million, one of the demands in their first lawsuit. The archbishop appealed against the rejection of his request to establish the ownership of the monastery and the surrounding lands, as well as the ruling to expel him from 29 of the contested 71 plots.

When was the appeal verdict issued?

 

The Ismailia Court of Appeal issued a verdict in Cases No. 226 and 228 of 32, challenging judgment No. 24 of 2015 (Civil Full Court, Sharm El-Sheikh), on 28 May 2025.

How did the court classify the disputed lands?

 

The court classified the 71 disputed plots into four sections:

• Section I: Land not proven to be in the possession of the archbishop of St. Catherine's Monastery.

• Section II: Land of a religious nature, owned by the state and possessed by the archbishop on behalf of the president of the republic.

• Section III: Land for which preliminary sales contracts had been drawn up between the archbishop and the governor of South Sinai in 2004.

• Section IV: Lands from which the archbishop will be expelled, including some with religious sites, such as monastic cells. In its definition of "religious possession,” the court differentiated religious sites from non-religious sites.

What is "religious possession"?

 

Religious possession is a legal term introduced by the court. In its formulation and definition, the court relied on definitions contained in the Church Building Law No. 80 of 2016, including that of a church and associated structures, a monastery, and the religious and ecclesiastical character of both church and monastery.

The court based the religious possession concept on the fact that the archbishop of St. Catherine's Monastery, in his religious and ecclesiastical capacity, was justifiably in possession of the churches within religious sites because he was entrusted with the observance of religious rites in them.

What is the difference between ownership, possession, and usufruct?

 

Ownership grants full ownership rights, including to use, exploit, and dispose, while possession means mere physical control of a property or its use – the right to usufruct. Usufruct can be acquired by possession, by contract, or by judicial order.

How did the court deal with the second category, lands of religious nature?

 

The court rejected the request of the archbishop of St. Catherine's Monastery to establish ownership of these lands, ignoring the fact that the monks had been in possession of the monastery and its surroundings for nearly 14 centuries and appeared to be the original owner. The court relied on a lack of conditions for acquisitive ownership, as stated in the reasoning of its ruling:

1. Possession must be apparent, unhidden, and directly visible to the owner of the property.

2. Possession must be clear and unambiguous, with explicit actions taken in the presence of the owner that do not allow for ambiguity.

3. From the first day, possession must be for the purpose of ownership, such that the claimant appears as owner by acts that deprive the owner of ownership.

4. The property claimant must be in personal possession of the property from the first day and not on behalf of the owner or others.

5. The property claimant’s possession should not be incomplete or incidental and should be with the intention of ownership.

The court found that if none of these conditions was fulfilled, possession would lose its consideration as a cause of ownership, regardless of duration.

As the court considered these lands to be owned by the state, and based on the fact that the archbishop of St. Catherine's Monastery was appointed by Presidential Decree No. 306 of 1974, it deduced the archbishop's possession of the monastery to be "religious possession" on behalf of the president of the republic, rather than original possession.

Ownership of state funds could have been acquired by prescription before the promulgation of Law No. 147 of 1957, but the court said that neither the archbishop nor his predecessors had applied to acquire ownership of these lands by prescription before 1957, proving that that the possession of the monastery by the archbishop and his predecessors was not for the purpose of ownership.

Which sites did the court consider to be religious?

 

The Church and Shrine of the Prophet Aaron, the Church of St. Theorzi, the Church of the Garden, the monks’ dwelling rooms and an attached storehouse and a water basin, the Church of Aposteli, residential buildings for monks, storehouses, the Church of Triaza, the Holy Trinity, the two rooms of Mount Moses, the Church and residence of monks in Elijah's Basin, the Church of St. Stephen, the Church of St. Ioannis Prodromos, the Church of St. Gregory, the Church of St. Zoni, the Church of St. Panteleimon, the Red Church, the Church of Anna, the Church of the Virgin Columbia, the Church of the Stone of Moses, a chapel and a monk’s chamber attached to it, St. Catherine's Church, the Talaa Church and rest house, the Valley of Talaa Church, Omran Cemetery and House, the Church of St. John Klimax, the remains of Ramhan Monastery, the Church of Sinai Saints, and the Church of the Cross.

The court added to these sites the guesthouse located at the entrance to the St. Catherine’s Monastery, which the Ministry of Antiquities agreed to renovate at the request of the monastery’s archbishop in 2000.

How did the court deal with lands for which preliminary sales contracts had been drawn up?

 

Although the plaintiffs maintained that the contracts were invalid because the lands were state property and their ownership could therefore not be acquired, the court found that as long as no judgment was issued invalidating these contracts, the charge that the archbishop usurped the land would be groundless. Therefore, the court ruled that the archbishop possessed the land. However, the reasoning for the ruling stated that the validity of the archbishop's possession of the land was incomplete, because preliminary sales contracts cannot serve as title deeds; ownership is transferred only by registration. This means that the archbishop’s possession of the lands will be threatened if the preliminary sales contracts are ruled invalid in future, but if they are ruled valid its possession will be approved.

A clause in one of the preliminary sales contracts stated that the purchaser (the archbishop of St. Catherine’s Monastery) acknowledged that he had received the property, i.e., the lands for which the preliminary sales contracts had been drawn up. The court considered this clause to show the archbishop's acknowledgement of the receipt of these lands in 2004, when the contracts were drawn up, and concluded that the archbishop had waived his possession of these lands prior to the date of the conclusion of the contracts.

What did the appeal verdict state?

 

The appeal verdict included 71 plots of land, including 29 religious sites, 17 plots for which preliminary sales contracts were drawn up, and other lands, while the first-instance verdict was limited to the 29 religious sites.

Although neither verdict recognized the archbishop’s ownership of the lands, and instead considered them state property, the Court of Appeal did not hold that the archbishop's possession resulted from “usurpation," contrary to the first-instance ruling.

The Court of Appeal's ruling was limited to the expulsion of the archbishop from some sites that he actually possessed but which are not designated religious sites (29 plots of land) or for which contracts have been drawn up (17 contracts), provided that these lands are handed over with their structures and plantings as compensation for the plaintiffs’ non-use.

The Court of First Instance had ruled to evict the archbishop from the 29 plots of land that contain religious sites, which were to be handed over with their structures and planting in compensation for the plaintiffs' non-use of these sites. The court ruling did not include the other 42 lands as they were not precisely identified by the plaintiffs.

What did the appeal verdict issued on 28 May 2025 establish?

 

The appeal verdict ruled that the disputed lands are state property and, due to their nature, are subject to the supervision of the ministries of antiquities and the environment. The verdict did not establish the archbishop’s ownership of the monastery, but acknowledged his religious possession of the churches only. Moreover, the judgment did not establish the ownership of the lands of St. Catherine's Monastery and the surrounding lands by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Sinai, represented by the archbishop of St. Catherine's Monastery, despite his legal possession of them, i.e., his clear and continuous physical control that had existed for centuries before 1957, when ownership of state property could be acquired by prescription.

After the ruling stripped the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in Sinai of ownership, it also stripped it of possession of several lands, and classified its possession of others in various forms:

1. Religious possession. A new legal concept established by the judgments, this is defined as possession resulting from the observance of religious rites. This new concept resulted in complete separation between – on the one hand – the monastery and the churches, which the judgment acknowledged the archbishop’s "religious possession" thereof, and – on the other hand – the rest of the spaces and lands that were an essential part of monastic life in the monastery. The judgment considered that the possession of these spaces by the archbishop of St. Catherine’s Monastery is not religious possession, but that he is just a "guardian of them for the benefit of the state.”

2. Temporary possession: Since preliminary sales contracts do not transfer ownership, if these contracts are ruled invalid on the grounds that the lands are "state property,” possession will be threatened. This is the status of the 17 contracts drawn up between the archbishop of St. Catherine's Monastery and the Governorate of South Sinai. These contracts deny the archbishop’s trespass and usurpation of land and are even considered a deed constituting his possession of these lands before the ruling was issued. Therefore if they are ruled invalid the archbishop’s possession will be threatened, and if they are ruled valid his possession will be established.

3. Illegal possession: The possession of the rest of the lands from which the court ordered the archbishop’s eviction even though they are in his actual possession. Moreover, the court ordered the handover of these lands with their structures and plantings in compensation for the plaintiffs' non-use of them.

Are all antiquities considered public property?

 

Article VI of the Antiquities Protection Law No. 117 of 1983 states that “all real and movable antiquities and lands which are considered archaeological lands are considered public property except for the waqfs [religious endowments] and private property, the ownership, possession or disposal thereof is not permitted except under the terms and conditions stipulated in this law and its executive regulations.” This means that the law allows the ownership of real-estate and movable monuments and lands, if they are endowments or private property, but under specific conditions.

What are the powers of the holder of antiquities?

 

Law No. 3 of 2010 repealed Article 9 of the Antiquities Protection Law, which stated: The possessor of the antiquity may dispose of it in any manner after getting a written approval from the Authority [the Supreme Council of Antiquities] in accordance with the procedures and rules of which a decree by the competent minister in cultural affairs [currently the minister of tourism and antiquities] is issued provided that such disposal does not result in removing said antiquity from the country.

The provisions of possession in that law were applicable to whomever the ownership or possession of the antiquity is transferred in accordance with the provisions of said law or through inheritance. In all cases, the Authority has the priority of obtaining the antiquity at disposal in return for a fair compensation. Moreover, the Authority is entitled to obtain any antiquities it deems appropriate or to recover antiquities taken from architectural elements by merchants or others in return for a fair compensation.