Main Points of the Proceeding in the District Court
- On June 28, 2011, Himanuta filed a lawsuit with the Court of First Instance, requesting recognition of the binding validity of the Settlement Agreement, or alternatively to obligate the Patriarchate to pay compensation for retiring from negotiations in bad faith.
- As part of the proceedings for discovering and reviewing the documents, the trial court ordered the Patriarchate to disclose the Protocols of the Holy Synod, but the Patriarchate claimed that the Protocols were protected under secrecy for religious reasons. In order to decide on the claim of confidentiality, the District Court ordered that copies of the minutes be forwarded to the Regulation 119 For the Regulations Civil Procedure, התשמ"IV-1984. An application for leave to appeal against this decision was filed with this court, and it was heard as an appeal that was partially granted, when it was determined that the District Court would reconsider the need to use In the Regulation 119 (The judge's judgment v. Solberg With permission Civil Appeal 7598/14 Giannopoulos, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem v. Himanuta IITax Appeal [Nevo] (6.1.2015)).
Subsequently, the District Court ruled that the minutes were relevant for the purpose of settling the dispute between the parties, and therefore ordered that the drafts of the minutes be transferred to Himanuta, as well as that copies of the minutes be deposited in the court's vault. An application for leave to appeal against this decision was also filed with this court, and this too was heard as an appeal that was partially granted. In the judgment, it was determined that the existence of a religious custom prohibiting the disclosure of the Synod book had been proven; Because by virtue of this custom, relative confidentiality is created; and that the Patriarchate transmit to Hinumeruta a text detailing the content of the discussion at the meetings of the Synod (hereinafter: The Wording) as well as a position in the District Court for photocopies of the two requested protocols with notarized translation into Hebrew (Judgment in the Authority). Civil Appeal 5247/15 Giannopoulos v. Himanuta BTax Appeal [Nevo] (August 28, 2016) (hereinafter: the Religious Confidentiality)). It should be noted here that the Patriarchate was given extensions to submit the text and copies of the minutes, but at the end of the day these were never submitted.
- On December 14, 2021, the judgment that is the subject of the appeals before us was rendered. After reviewing the sequence of events, the evidence before it, and the normative framework for the hearing, the trial court focused on the scope of the dispute, namely, the question of the legal validity of the settlement agreement, and whether it constitutes a binding agreement:
As to the status of the individual - It was determined that it included preconditions in the form of the approval of the authorized body in the JNF and the approval of the Holy Synod, and that the approval of the Holy Synod was necessary for the purpose of the Patriarchate's decision to enter into the Settlement Agreement. The court added that the same result can also be reached according to the "relationship formula", since the particulars are a preliminary agreement for the signing of a future settlement agreement, which makes the signing of the additional agreement a suspension condition for the engagement, without which it is difficult to claim the conclusion of an agreement. Admittedly, the District Court was not persuaded that the parties had decided that only a physical signature on the contract would bind them. However, the settlement agreement was subject to preconditions for the approval of the relevant parties and the State of Israel's recognition of the Patriarchate, which indicates that the parties did not view the agreement as binding until the necessary approvals were received and until the Patriarchate chose the alternative it deemed desirable.