VZCZCXRO7050
PP RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHIT #0550 1781148
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 271148Z JUN 07
FM AMCONSUL ISTANBUL
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7205
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA PRIORITY 6759
RUEHDA/AMCONSUL ADANA PRIORITY 2317

UNCLAS ISTANBUL 000550 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM TU
SUBJECT: ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE WINS PYRRIC VICTORY IN 
YARGITAY RULING 
 
 
Sensitive but Unclassified.  Please protect accordingly. 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary and comment.  On June 26 the Turkish Higher 
Court of Appeals (Yargitay) upheld a local Istanbul court 
decision to acquit 12 members of the Holy Synod of the 
Ecumenical Patriarchate on the charge of "illegal obstruction 
of religious service."  In rendering this decision the court 
reiterated the Government of Turkey (GOT) position that the 
patriarchate is not ecumenical in nature.  The case, stemming 
from intra-Orthodox tensions, offered Kemalist judicial 
officials a ready opportunity to reiterate the GOT's stance 
regarding the patriarchate's constrained authority in Turkey. 
 End Summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) On June 26, in reviewing a decision made by the 
Third Fatih Penal Court, the Turkish Higher Court of Appeal 
(Yargitay) argued that the patriarchate was allowed to remain 
in Istanbul, pursuant to the 1923 Lausanne Treaty, on the 
condition that its authority would be limited to the Greek 
minority in Turkey.  The court determined that: "It is not 
acceptable that a sovereign country implements different laws 
for a minority living on its land and grants some privileges 
that are not granted even to the members of the majority as 
it would clearly be against the equality principle mentioned 
in Article 10 of the Constitution."  In rendering its 
decision to uphold the acquittal of the synod members on 
charges of obstructing religious service, the appellate court 
stressed that the patriarchate was subject to Turkish law (a 
statement patriarchate officials would not contest.) 
 
¶3. (SBU) The case arose in September 2003 when the Fatih 
Public Prosecutor brought a case against the Ecumenical 
Patriarchate based on complaints related to the defrocking of 
a Bulgarian Orthodox priest.  According to patriarchate 
officials, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church placed St. Stephen's 
Church in Istanbul under the spiritual jurisdiction of the 
Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1945.  The two churches had been 
in schism prior to that decision.  As symbolic recognition of 
this spiritual jurisdiction, Bulgarian Orthodox priests are 
required to commemorate His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch 
Bartholomew during each service.  The Ecumenical Patriarchate 
defrocked Konstantin Kostoff, a Bulgarian Orthodox priest, 
for disobedience to the Ecumenical Patriarch because he 
refused to make this symbolic statement.  According to 
patriarchate officials, Kostoff felt that the Ecumenical 
Patriarch was attempting the "Hellenize" him and had been 
reprimanded numerous times prior to being defrocked.  Kostoff 
has now reportedly affiliated himself with the extremely 
small Turkish Orthodox Church, an early Republican creation 
of the Turkish state. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Kostoff continued to perform religious services 
despite his conflict with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  The 
local court found that, because Kostoff continued to perform 
religious functions, his freedom of religion had not been 
violated.  Had Kostoff ceased to work as a priest following 
his defrocking the court may have found in his favor.   The 
Yargitay held that the synod decision to defrock Kostoff 
could not be legally justified; however, the court also 
stated the defrocking did not rise to the level of a 
violation of Kostoff's freedom of religion. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Comment.  Tensions within Turkey's minority 
religious communities provide opportunities, such as this 
case, for the judiciary to use the legal system to reiterate 
Kemalist constraints upon minority religious expression.  The 
Yargitay decision does not alter current GOT policy regarding 
the status of the patriarchate, but the decision may 
complicate a future government decision to recognize the 
ecumenical nature of the patriarchate.  End Comment. 
 
 
JONES