The Greek Patriarchate and another party drafted, through their lawyers, a general protocol intended to settle their disputes through compromise after receiving approvals from parties on both sides, when two alternatives for compromise were proposed. The agreements were made in a ceremonial setting in the presence of the Patriarch, but the agreement was not signed by either party because the signature was subject to approvals. The protocol explicitly stated that it must be signed in order to bind the parties.
The Supreme Court held that no binding agreement was concluded between the parties. Negotiations mature into a binding agreement when the parties demonstrate a will to executed an agreement, which is reviewed through an objective-external test. Negotiations to conclude an agreement may yield an "interim agreement", but for such an agreement to bind the parties, it must be part of the negotiations for the main transaction and include all essential details. A signature is an important indication of the existence of a consensus, but it does not in itself constitute unequivocal evidence of its existence, and a distinction must be made between a substantive and evidentiary requirement. Here, the protocol was no more than an auxiliary document for the purpose of promoting negotiations between the parties, with each party having the right not to continue with. All that was agreed upon was a general compromise outline, with no alternative chosen, to be followed by approvals from parties on both sides - that did not materialize. In addition, the protocol explicitly stated that signature was a substantive condition for concluding an agreement, that also did not materialized.