Peter, did you apply for a Golden Visa/ARI through the ARI portal or did someone do that for you. If not, I think this is not the right forum for you, but rather you should be on one of the other forums that discuss that various visa options for Portugal depending on your personal situation.
2 Likes
Agreed. Focus on people who havenât yet applied, or who rushed to apply after they were told their application wouldnât be accepted, should be redirected to existing visa holders and applicants. They stand to lose the most, and are the ones having the rug pulled out from under them.
(Setting the cutoff as Feb 16 might be unconstitutional, but being unable to apply is vastly different than making an investment then having the rules changed.)
3 Likes
Except for the people who made investments like real estate that can take months before they close and hadnât closed prior to Feb. 16th. Or people who made investments, and most of the paperwork ready but were still waiting for apostilles from their governments as of Feb. 16.
2 Likes
Joel, my accountants filed all the paperwork on 14th December 2021, Iâve been waiting since then. On the regulations as they stood at the time PGV was the best route. Obviously Iâm considering again now given the potential changes, but Iâd prefer to stay the course. Thanks for your concern.
Exactly. In my case the investment was made in November 22. Compiling the paperwork took a bit longer given my countryâs extremely bureaucratic system and my application was lodged around the first week of March. The only reason i even put the application in was because the investment was already made and locked in. I had faith in the portugese government but turns out that was a mistake.
8 Likes
There are some legitimate reasons why someone might want to renew a Golden Visa more than 2 or 3 times.
The main advantage of a Golden Visa compared to other visas is that you are determined to be legally resident by staying on average 7 days a year in each renewal period. So you might need this to be true for longer than the initial five years if, for example:
-
You are currently a citizen of a country that does not allow dual citizenship, and you are not yet ready to renounce your current citizenship at the 5 year mark.
-
One or more of your dependents are not ready to apply for citizenship or permanent residency at the 5 year mark (as their status changes once the main applicant no longer has a Golden Visa).
-
You have added more dependents (through family reunion) late compared to your original application (for example a new child or a parent that has become dependent) and you need to wait until their 5 years is complete, so that they are also eligible for citizenship with the small stay (7 day/year) requirement.
5 Likes
I will grant that there is a âshallâ in the renewal and PR articles. I didnât question that.
I will agree that an ARI holder has the right to apply for citizenship. My point is that that ârightâ is the same right that any other residence permit holder has to apply for citizenship. There is nothing uniquely âARIâ-y about right, nor does the ARI provide any particular or unique benefit to the citizenship application process. ARI is just another way to meet the 5 year residency requirement. Indeed, the whole concept of ARI exists only within the confines of the Aliens Act and is referenced nowhere in the Nationality Act or its regulations that I have ever seen. Therefore, in my mind anyway itâs kind neither here nor there, and IMO a fairly ⌠fraught⌠point to be highlighting in the current environment.
At the end of the day, the ARI makes a very simple tradeoff of money for boots-on-ground time. Thatâs about it. Which is of course significantly different than all other classes of permit.
3 Likes
Retroactive Revocation of Portuguese Golden Visa: Unconstitutional
Retroactive Revocation of Portuguese Golden Visa: Unconstitutional - The Portugal News
Thanks. The opinions Iâve seen, or heard reported, seem to focus a lot on the retroactivity point about the 16th February cutoff, and also on the original proposal for new rules on leases for those renewing GVs who have real estate.
The 16th Feb issue is clearly of concern to some people on these forums; but many more are concerned about renewal provisions, particularly given Costaâs comments of 30th November about a move to âentrepreneurâ visas.
I havenât yet seen any legal analysis that deals specifically with the constitutionality of shifting people from the visa they applied for to another visa type, either at original issue or on renewal. A âtransition periodâ of a year or whatever isnât much use if GV holders have to renew into a D2 in two or four yearsâ time.
7 Likes
There is too much of noise on all the issues we have been discussing in this forum. Also, the media is very active, so my optimism says this will get resolved in the weeks to come. Letâs all hope for a positive outcome.
3 Likes
You are right; this is indeed the critical point, along with whether physical presence is required. I think we can agree with critics of the program that 7 days a year is only a weak indicator of a link with PT. However requiring 183 days of boots on the ground is strict. I wouldnât have a problem paying PT tax on a residency declaration.
3 Likes
A lot of the comment on the unconstitutionality point is based on the rights of PT citizens. However, ARI candidates are by definition not citizens, so cannot benefit from constitutional protections offered to citizens.
The response to that seems to be that there is a constitutional article guaranteeing equality of treatment to citizens and non-citizens, but I donât think that can work. The equality can only benefit non-citizens if they are not exercising a right derived from citizenship.
Consider two examples.
-
I, a non-citizen and a citizen are both in a coffee shop in Lisbon. We both pay two euros for a coffee. He gets his; I donât get mine. I can object based on the equality article because I benefit from PT contract law whether I am a citizen or not.
-
It is nevertheless clear that the equality article does not give me the same rights as a citizen. As a topical example, I clearly do not have the right to reside in PT.
Our rights as ARI candidates fall into category 2 I believe and therefore we have no constitutional equality protections.
1 Like
I do not think your analysis is correct. Article 18.3 of Portugal Constitutional Law does not explicitly states it only apply to Portugal citizen. In this case, Constitutional law applies to both citizens and foreign investors in a country. Constitutional law is the supreme law of the land and it applies to everyone within the countryâs borders, including foreign investors.
Regarding your 2nd point, you can get the answer from here:
5 Likes
ARI candidates are not âwithin the countryâs bordersâ in your terminology and therefore enjoy no Constitutional protection according to your argument.
In addition, Article 13 reads as below.
(Principle of equality)
- All citizens possess the same social dignity and are equal before the law.
This article gives no benefits to non-citizens.
Regarding the 2 messages by @wriggle.coaxial.0l :
- After reading through these messages several times, I still do not understand the reasoning.
- There are no references given to support dubious factual assertions.
- Who is more credible, distinguished legal scholars who helped write the Portuguese 1974 Constitution, or a nameless poster who just signed up?
Constitucionalistas chumbam travão aos vistos gold - Habitação - Jornal de Negócios - I suppose the NomadGate community should be flattered that it merits the attention of multiple concern trolls
It was an enormous, life-consuming effort to obtain a Portuguese golden visa. The Portuguese government made essential contractual promises in exchange for my fees and investments, and I will not bargain away these rights. If others want to become tax residents and live in the country full-time, there are plenty of D visa types available, but they are not entitled to force those conditions on me.
7 Likes
Thereâs also Article 15(1), with the slightly odd wording that âForeigners and stateless persons who find themselves in or who reside in Portugal shall enjoy the same rights and be subject to the same duties as Portuguese citizensâ
Not sure that helps me much though⌠Iâm not in Portugal, even if I have dealings with the Portuguese State.
1 Like
Agreed Mark, in my analysis of the constitution, research of various articles and opinions from Portuguese lawyers, Wiggle is missing these two precepts of the constitution posted earlier which have been tested and affirmed in other actions before the constitutional court.
-
Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Portugal which affirms the principle of equality and consider nationality as a factor that should NOT result in negative discrimination. Prime Minister Costaâs Governmentâs proposals clearly violate this principle of equality, as a specific group of citizens â foreign citizens and investors in Portugal â are treated discriminatorily based solely on their status. A status which even after the 1/1/2022 when the new ARI scheme amendments took effect, were encouraged, welcomed and promoted by the Portuguese Republic, 100âs of advisory firms, lawyers, real estate firms and equity investors.
-
Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic, such that the rights system of the Constitution of the Republic of Portugal favors equal treatment between Portuguese and foreign citizens. This implies that the lack of equal treatment under the Constitution coupled with the principle of equality will results in claims to the European Court of Human Rights, European Courts of Justice and the UN Human Rights Authorities because of the diversity of nationalities.
Also there are Acts/Laws by the Portuguese Republic that state the laws of the republic shall not run contrary to the UN Charter, the UN Charter for Human Rights as well as laws and precepts of the EU treaties, laws or precepts.
2 Likes
I encourage wiggle to read the constitution and then the analysis of scholars related to the approx first 70 or so Articles of the CRP if not the whole thing as I did.
You state that âa specific group of citizens â foreign citizens and investors in Portugal â are treated discriminatorilyâ but ARI candidates are foreign investors and not citizens of PT. Any individual who has completed the process and become a PT citizen of course benefits from the protections the Constitution offers citizens. The term âcitizensâ means citizens of Portugal, not citizens of any country. If the contrary were the case, that citizens of any country enjoy the rights enshrined in the PT Constitution, then no one would need a visa to reside in PT.
The Constitutional lawyers have indeed said however that ARI candidates can benefit from Constitutional protections. This can only be in the indirect fashion I attempted to describe with my two examples. As a further example, the Constitution forbids the passage of retroactive laws. Everyone in the world indirectly benefits from that since the attempt to invalidate applications made after Feb 16 in principle allows anyone in the world to apply today. I believe that the Constitutional lawyers must be arguing that the attempt to change the renewal conditions falls into that indirect category rather than the direct route of allowing the rights of citizens to non-citizens.
I am happy to read articles if you supply a specific link to one article rather than the entire SEF website.
1 Like