Tel Aviv (AsiaNews) - The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophilus III - so Israeli media report - has presented a recourse, on Wednesday, 26 October, to Israel's High Court of Justice (the country's highest administrative court) against the Executive, which according to him is still denying him civil recognition, i.e. is refusing to issue him with the decree (of Ottoman origin) called Berat.

This decree would be necessary for the Patriarch to be able to act on behalf of the Patriarchate in the secular sphere (buy, sell, give orders in respect of bank accounts etc.). The recourse alleges that the Government is making the grant of the Berat conditional upon acceptance by Patriarch Theophilus of certain real estate sales (in East Jerusalem)  made by his deposed predecessor, Irineus I, transferring the properties to Israeli settlers. The cause of enormous scandal among clergy and faithful, but also to public opinion at large, these sales are believed by the new Patriarch to be obviously invalid, not only because done without the required approval of the Synod, but also in view of the improbably low prices indicated in the contracts and cited by the recourse. The Government has not yet responded to the recourse of the Patriarch.

The Israeli Franciscan jurist, Fr. David-Maria A. Jaeger, an expert on Church-State relations in Israel, reached by AsiaNews, comments: "As a matter of fact there Israeli law does not require the Berat or any other act of Government recognition of the newly elected Greek Orthodox Patriarch. Nonetheless, in everyday life, without a letter of recognition by the Government, many private and public bodies  - for example, banks, companies, but also the land registry and various Government agencies - often refuse to del with the Patriarch in his capacity of legal representative of the corporation he heads. This results in considerable practical difficulties, above all in the administration of temporal goods. Since this refusal has no basis in law, and since it would be moreover incompatible with the fundamental principles of the legal system, the Patriarch could direct his recourse against the very requirement that he have the Berat (a requirement happily never directed at any Catholic Bishop). It seems almost certain that, if he did it, citing especially the right to religious freedom, the High Court of Justice would side with him.

However, going by the press reports, this is not what the Patriarch is doing. It appears that the Patriarch has chosen instead (perhaps for tactical motives, but also because it might be difficult to challenge a non-existing legal requirement) not to challenge directly the survival of the Berat, but to argue that this recognition is being denied to him on illegitimate grounds, in the service of what would essentially amount to 'extortion'. This is a very grave accusation to make against the public authorities - with which he and his institution will, in any case, have to co-exist - and it will be very interesting to see what response the Government will make (most certainly an indignant response rejecting the charge)."