Moving this discussion to a dedicated thread.
1 Like
For those counting on āpromisesā and constitutionality, itās important to note that it will likely only apply to pending applications and those who are able to renew before the law passes.
The law never promised the renewal requirements will be constant for 5 years, let alone in perpetuity. Thatās part of the reason that the permits are issued for 2 years at a time and not 5 years.
Countries change their visa regimes all the time. As long as they donāt retroactively revoke issued permits, they can change renewal requirements at anytime.
This isnāt unique to Portugal. The US did the same thing to the EB-5 investors: Congress approved EB-5 authorization a year at a time, and when the authorization lapsed for nearly a year all pending applications were put on hold. When it was resumed, adjudication standards changed.
It was some unscrupulous consultants that promised that you could renew your way to citizenship. Ethical lawyers I spoke to emphasized that GV renewal requirements and citizenship application requirements can change; only the initial permit is guaranteed. The deal as expressed in law was: āin exchange for your investment, you get a 2 year GV. if the law remains unchanged in 2 years because we continue to value your investment, we will offer you a 2 year extension.ā
5 Likes
Spencer, though I have little experience with law, I see your point and it sounds right. I guess what Iām wondering is , if PT passed the retroactive law, will there be consequences for them. I know we can do class action against them, but they can de-motivate us by prolonging the process indefinitely until the results donāt matter anymore. In this case, I canāt think of any way to protect my rights.
2 Likes
Depends on which part youāre referring to.
On the matter of changing adjudication standards for pending applications (eg to that of entrepreneur visas), I think itās quite likely unconstitutionally retroactive.
On the matter of denying applications past 16 Feb 2023, it is probably unconstitional but less certain.
On the matter of changing renewal requirements, it is prospective for future renewals and thus I am doubtful it will be considered retroactive.
The good news is that in most court systems, if a lower court sides with you, even if the government appeals the ruling the appeals court will often let the lower courtās ruling stand until they make a decision. As a result, the delays may not impact your rights even if frustrating. Thereās also a chance the constitutional court will be asked to exercise itās authority to review the law beforehand, in which case it must render a decision in 25 days with no appeals.
3 Likes
Thank you for the explanation, it seems going to court with PT may not be as hard as I thought, though Iām still hoping that I donāt have to take it that far.
I quite agree with your analysis here, and quite align with what the PM said on renewal. My assumption on the final outcome is:
- GV will officially end the time the law is passed by Parliament or signed by the president.
- Application made before the official GV end date is still valid, so it wonāt be unconstitutional
- All current benefits of GV holders will be continue to be valid until renewal which will be converted to other visa types, and yes, benefits of 7 days stay/year will be gone.
I think it will also be aligned with the timeline that all GV must be faded out latest by 2025. Remember that the government nor written law never says your GV will get you PR or citizenship.
4 Likes
This almost feels like a satire article? https://www.portugalresident.com/global-investors-wowed-by-portuguese-golden-visa-upgrade-to-platinum/
Did you check the date of the āarticleā ?
3 Likes
hope it gave anyone else on this forum a microsecond of optimism
Happy April Fools day 
5 Likes
Hey, thanks for the uncalled-for personal attack.
Yep, turns out Iām more interested to post when the situation is in flux, as opposed to the relative stability in the past few years.
If itās not already obvious, Iām never claimed to be a lawyer and am posting what Iāve gathered from my lawyer, reading a couple of legal summaries and constitutional court opinions. I acknowledge and even agree some of the retroactive components are problematic. Changing renewal conditions is less clear, and my lawyer has said that the constitutional court may let it stand.
Iāve nothing to sell you. I stand to gain nothing; these discussions are helping inform what I should do with my investment.
Youāre free to continue listening to the very people who told you things like āyou will definitely be grandfathered in if the rules changeā, āthe government has no incentive to end GVs because of the money it bringsā or āwe can fight this case for you (for a fee)ā.
The PT government has shown extreme disdain for GVs, going so far as to insist on a retroactive termination even after public consultation, as well as changing the terms of renewals.
Iām a strong believer in not trying to fight expensive battles and lawsuits (in time and money) that will likely result in Pyrrhic victories. Yes, you may win a court case on this particular issue. The government could then perfectly legally pass physical residence requirements for PR/citizenship in response.
7 Likes
I donāt see how that will be constitutional to change to other visa types for which most GV holders wonāt qualify either by their investment type or their stay durations in the country. The key to the GV was not having to reside in the country. I think ultimately it will be the courts to make it so that all GV requirements will apply retroactively including the stay requirements.
4 Likes
In this case it would be better for pending applications (and probably existing visa holders) if they retroactively change the rules enough for lawsuits against the government to work out. I donāt want a GV for 2 years which then reverts to requiring 6+ months spent in PT every year; it has no value to me, and could be achieved without dumping 250K.
At this point I hope the pressure from the EU is strong enough that PT gives our lawsuits a LOT of merit by making big changes.
I think spencer is probably right, however, in that the 2 year renewal period is designed to let them make changes to existing visas. Sure, it sounds like we should be able to renew every 2 years until we die, but if they wanted it to be permanent it would be.
4 Likes
Not to worry Nik, happens to the best of us ā¦ probably even Spenceā¦
1 Like
Thank you, Spencer. I enjoy reading your analyses, even though I donāt always agree with them. Diversity of opinions is essential for a balanced view.
The situation is indeed tricky, as the government is about to breach the initial terms and conditions. I was once in a similar situation in the UK with the HSMP program. The government at the time, namely the Foreign Office under Theresa May stewardship, applied retroactive changes (though not as egregious as the proposed set). We all collectively went to court and won the judicial review.
In my experience, the UK is a superb country when it comes to the rule of law. Therefore, a similar collective judicial action seems to be the most rational way forward, even though the outcome is far from guaranteed. But given what is at stake, it is worth a try.
Please keep the good analysis comingā¦
8 Likes
Hereās what Iām struggling to understand at this point.
The draft law that emerged at the beginning of March explained into considerable detail that pending GV applications would be allowed to proceed if submitted by 16th Feb, and that they would be deemed valid applications for residents permits for carrying out an investment activity. The draft law also set out detailed terms for renewals, including the lease requirements for residential property.
The comments made by Costa on Thursday seem to ignore all that, suggesting that permits for carrying out an investment activity will no longer exist in any form; everything will be some other type of permit under the general law.
So either (a) having published the draft law, the Government had a radical re-think, and completely changed the plan, or (b) we are misunderstanding what Costa said. It would seem odd to publish a draft law, launch a public consultation, take submissions, and then entirely change the basis of what was being proposed.
Iāll be fascinated to see the new draft when itās published - and whether it junks the previous Articles 31 and 32.
8 Likes
I agree, thatās been confusing me and you put it to words better than I could have.
Iāll be meeting my lawyer in person on monday, and will be asking about renewals (Iād expect my initial application to go through fine, weāre doing biometrics in a couple weeks in faro).
Iād even be ok with 3 years in portugal I think, if I must, but would strongly prefer not. I plan to even visit for several months each year, but 183 days is a lot!
4 Likes
Very good point, Chris. I was also bracing myself for a 5-year lease, which I was prepared to accept. Only then to find out that the rules for the stay are about to change drastically in a completely different direction (183 vs 7 days under the initial regime is quite extreme). Could that be that the government is testing ideas? If so, there should probably be some feedback loop to forewarn of potential legal backlash.
6 Likes
Guys, I am not quite sure where ā183 daysā is coming from.
Have just checked the current laws, it looks like ~240 days per year bare minimum for any non-GV temporary residence permits.
See my post in another thread:
4 Likes
I am wondering on what basis everyone is saying that people can be forced renewed into other visas. There was no law that set guidelines for a renewal process for GV applicants? Can someone point to the section of law that SEF is looking to for renewal approvals?
4 Likes