Has anyone seen this?
Any thoughts on how this may impact us moving forward?
Mentioned here Moving the Goalposts on Citizenship again - #48 by PTbound
I donāt know if this ruling affects Maltaās current (expedited naturalization) program?
My understanding is at the time the court case started (2020) Malta had a straight up cash for citizenship program, but since then this program was already ended and replaced by the expedited naturalization program, which requires 1-3 years residence in addition to investment for citizenship.
Maltaās new 3 year option is actually slower than Spainās 2 year citizenship requirement for Latin Americans. So Iām not sure how the EU could oppose one not not the other.
Well, rightā¦thatās the point. Itās the EU court so wouldnāt that imply that it will ultimately be considered āillegalā throughout the EU?
Spainish law regarding ibero-americanos and Shepardic Jews are well within the EU framework of Natonality laws and it was practiced way before EU was born. However, Malta is solely for the purposes of extra cash to be minted by compromising the security checks. You can watch several well known documentaries exposing Maltese agents selling passports to Known criminals and willful financial offenders. Thatās a world apart from other Golden Visa programs within EU.
1 Like
Some more detailed analysis here:
I donāt think we can draw too many conclusions from this about the legality of the Portuguese program which is a residence-by-investment program, not citizenship-by-investment.
1 Like
The way I read the full ruling, itās specifically the naturalization of those without a āgenuine connectionā that was ruled upon:
ā¦The bond of nationality with a Member State is based on a specific relationship of solidarity, good faith and the reciprocity of rights and duties between the State and its citizens. Where a Member State grants nationality, and thus automatically Union citizenship, in direct exchange for predetermined investments or payments through a transactional procedure, it manifestly infringes those principles. Such ācommercialisationā of citizenship is incompatible with the basic concept of Union citizenship as defined by the Treatiesā¦
So I donāt think this opines in any way about golden residence visa programmes. Logically, GVs should be able to be renewed as before.
However, this might increase the risk for non-resident GV holders down the road in terms of citizenship. One possible interpretation/implementation of this ruling would be to require real physical presence for citizenship, or require some other proof of connection to Portugal and the community here.
For those of us who live here I doubt this changes much. But for those of you fulfilling only the minimum time requirements, Iād be tracking this as a potential risk.
4 Likes
Well unlike Malta, a lot of us are spending many hours studying the language to pass A2. I have been reading Portuguese books, listening to Portuguese podcasts. That sure feels like a real connection to me!
For citizenship as a spouse or grandchild of PT citizen, it also requires proving connection, and PT law specifically lists knowledge of Portuguese as a strong connection in those cases.
5 Likes
Thatās right, Malta had no language requirement, and thatās one of the things that raised the ire of the EU. I have my A2 test next Thursday so I am heads down in those books and podcasts too. Boa sorte!
1 Like
In Portugal we receive our passport as naturalization via residency, not via investments. It is very important. Also the law mentions the ties to country exactly as EU requires.
Fans of legal analysis might like this from law professor Steve Peers, who takes a dim view of the EU ruling on Malta:
3 Likes