Iād love to see this legislation/regulation that āguaranteesā GV holders access to PT citizenship after 5 years of residence, regardless of nationality law changes for other immigrants. So please do share!
Sorry, but this is a misunderstanding of how laws work together in a legal system.
The fact that the nationality law doesnāt explicitly say āGolden Visa holders get citizenship after 5 yearsā is largely irrelevant. Multiple interlocking laws apply, and not every law explicitly lists every qualifying residency category. You canāt interpret a statute in isolation and claim that because it doesnāt name a specific program, the government can now do what it wants. Thatās not how legal systems function, especially civil law systems like Portugalās.
What matters is this: at the time Golden Visa holders entered the program, the nationality law required five years of legal residence for any foreign national to apply for citizenship. The GV is obviously a form of legal residence under the law, and therefore meets that requirement.
It is this legal framework, not a specific promise in ARI legislation, that investors relied on when deciding whether to commit significant capital.
Could the government change the rule for future applicants? Sure. But applying a 10-year rule retroactively to existing residents would run into serious problems, both constitutional and legal. Portuguese and EU legal systems protects legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and non-retroactivity, and these protections are especially strong when individuals have relied on the law in force to make long-term investments.
Have you run your understanding of the Portuguese law by your lawyer? Please do and share their written opinion with us!
People from the US (and English common law countries) often think any argument can be won and any question of law can be answered with āRELIANCE!ā. I donāt know where you are from, but your entire argument is reliance.
Obviously, the reasoning works great if the GV industry has to lobby politicians not to screw us over when amending the nationality law. But if PSD and Chega (plus some small parties) get enough votes to modify the language of the nationality law, for example:
Everyone who intends to naturalise based on > 5 years of residency, must have > 10 years of residency instead;
In addition to ālegal residency,ā one also must physically reside in Portugal for >183 days for each of those 10 years.
As is often the case, legislative intent varies: some legislators vote yes because the cosmetics look great with voters, some vote yes because they are unaware of the hard blow on existing GV holders who havenāt applied for naturalisation, others vote yes because theyāve hated GV for a decade. But letās say they get enough votes to pass an amendment.
Is your lawyer saying they are prepared to go to the constitutional court for you (no fee if no winning), arguing reliance?
PS: Iām not saying they have the votes. I pray they donāt.
Yes, Iāve spoken to my lawyers. And I think youāre mixing up political uncertainty with legal instability. Theyāre not the same thing.
The idea that ārelianceā is just some anglo common law concept is wrong. In Portugal and under EU law, itās embedded in core constitutional principles (ProteĆ§Ć£o da ConfianƧa, SeguranƧa JurĆdica, and Irretroatividade da Lei are the most relevant our purposes). These are well-established and have been upheld by the Constitutional Court in a number of cases involving tax, pensions, and other retroactive measures.
Golden Visa holders made substantial ā¬ā¬ā¬ investments based on a legal framework that clearly stated five years of legal residence qualifies for citizenship. That law applies to all legal residents. The GV is a legal residence permit under Portuguese law. So yes, relying on that framework is entirely reasonable, and Portuguese law protects that reliance.
Can Parliament change the law going forward? Yep, as Iāve now noted multiple times. But applying a 10-year rule retroactively to people already in the system is legally questionable and would face a constitutional challenge. And you are right that if push came to shove, the Constitutional Court would be the right venue, just as it has been for past retroactive laws that were overturned or limited.
I think we are all well aware that the GV program is a legal and political minefield that has forced plenty of people to go to court. Iām not sure why you would expect a lawyer to act pro bono for you in that scenario, but good luck trying to find one.
Also, for what itās worth, Chega and Andre Ventura have publicly and forcefully supported the Golden Visa program in the past (actually have called for its expansion). Itās not a given they would back retroactive restrictions on existing investors.
It seems we all agree there is a high degree of political uncertainty. With respect to legal instability, especially in the context of naturalisation, Portugal seems to have plenty (again, Iām happy to be proven wrong here): https://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/en/acordaos/20240128s.html
Much of the language in this summary of ruling can apply to GV holders as well, including, for example: VIII - The acquisition of nationality is a legal option and cannot be considered a form of exercise of any right, freedom or guarantee [ā¦] XI - Because it is not a legal right, the protection of the possibility of naturalisation for descendants of Sephardic Jews is less robust when compared to retroactive or retrospective legislative changes, especially as we are dealing with a case of retrospectivity.
How does your lawyer draw enough distinctions between a GV holder and a Sephardic Jew, to have confidence that the constitutional court will reach a different conclusion with respect to GV holders? In particular, the Sephardic Jews were denied a 3-year transitional period (as a result of the newly enacted 3-year residency requirement for them).
I donāt think anyone here is poor enough to qualify for pro bono legal service. I was talking about 100% success fee for the lawyers, and only court fees upfront. If the lawyers are confident, they would be willing to work with a small upfront fee and high success fee?
Donāt know what my lawyer would say but I would point out a couple of things about that case. That ruling was about changes to the nationality law for descendants of Sephardic Jews who, unlike GVs, were not required to spend any time or invest any money in the country before applying for citizenship. The government added a new rule requiring at least 3 yrs living in Portugal. The question was whether that rule could apply to people who had already applied under the old law.
The Court said yes because Sephardic applicants were ānon-resident foreignersā. They didnāt need to live in Portugal, pay taxes, or have any real connection to the country before applying to citizenship. In those circumstances, the Court said nationality was a legal option, not a protected right, so changing the rules was allowed.
This is a different scenario from GV holders. GV holders are legal residents. They pay taxes, have residence cards, go through renewals, and make big investments in Portugal. The nationality law says 5 years of legal residence qualifies you to apply, and that hasnāt changed (yet!).
So no, this ruling doesnāt really weaken the case for GV holders. If anything, it shows that legal protections like certainty and legitimate expectations are stronger when someone has real ties to Portugal, which GV residents do. The PT Constitution protects certainty and expectations, especially when people have made long-term financial decisions based on the law in force. And what my lawyer did say is that has been upheld before in a bunch of tax and pension cases. Those are better comparisons to GVs than the Sephardic route.
Thank you for the intelligent and well-thought-out response. Without seeing how the similarities and differences get applied to the PT Constitution, I think you have a 50-50 case at best, but I hope your argument wins.
Comparing a GV holder vs a Sephardic Jew applying to naturalise:
Similarities: both are trying to acquire nationality, which āis a legal option and cannot be considered a form of exercise of any right, freedom or guaranteeā
Differences:
GV holder has residency card and various other connections to Portugal, such as property/investment in Portugal;
the Sephardic Jew doesnāt necessarily have any of these.
Comparing a GV holder vs tax/pension cases:
Similarities: involves money; investments were made, in reliance on a set of laws that were in force at the time the investments were made
Differences:
Without knowing what they are, I assume in the tax/pension cases caused measurable money damages to the plaintiffs that are easy to prove;
For a GV Holder, you are free to stop renewing your GV at anytime, and free to cash out of your GV investment once the time restrictions from ARI law and contract are over. So the state did not take/expropriate money from you. One could argue opportunity costs, because better investments are available elsewhere if one didnāt get lured into GV hoping to obtain nationality, but good luck proving this as damages. One could argue nationality itself is the cost, but if itās not a right then surely itās not property.
I agree and speak for myself. As a GV holder, I made an informed decision and had an expectation under the legal framework at the time of application, ie. maintain investement for five years and, naturalisation requires five years legal residence. In other words, I wouldāve chosen another place if I knew the investment time was 10-15 years or more.
This was also mentioned in the linked article (translated)
"For a little over a year now, Parliament has passed a law that starts counting these five years from the moment the citizen makes the application for residence. This change can lead to a decrease of up to two years in time for the request.
However, this law was not regulated by the current Government, which, in private conversations, had already signaled did not agree with the five years, much less with the reduced count approved with the new law. Some lawyers claim that the law does not need regulation, but at the same time, many immigrants are unable to make the request within the new law, because there is no regulation. With todayās statement, it is clear that the Government will not regulate the law before leaving the Executive ā nor if it is re-elected in May."
Does this effectively mean theyāre refusing to honor the initial payment date as the start of the citizenship clock? If so, this is a double whammy.
I do hope youāre right, but that is relying on the good graces of PTās government and court system. It is absolutely not āa bulletproof guarantee of access to the citizenship application process after 5 yearsā that some people suggest. So letās set expectations appropriately: to me the main value of this forum is to cut through all the GV boosterism and give people reality.
The termination of PTās NHR 1.x would follow the logic youāre suggesting. First it was cancelled with immediate effect, followed by an uproar about rights, retrospective law-making, etc. Then the government backed-off and allowed a year or so of NHR 1.x grandfathering. But if you were still not able to get into NHR 1.x (i.e. become PT tax resident) during 2024 because SEF/AIMA was slow or other reasons, you lost out.
Following the same logic, if (yes, if !):
PT government legislates that as of Jan. 1 2026, citizenship needs more years and/or more time in-country than the 5 years/7 days/etc. when we applied for our GVs
Government also provides a one year grandfathering/transition (like they did with NHR 1.x) to Jan. 1 2027
If I still donāt have 5 years (counting GV application wait time, which as we know is still very arbitrary - and probably will remain so) by Jan. 1 2027ā¦ then like NHR 1.x have I lost out, and now need 7 or 10 years or whatever for citizenship?
This would be quite a rug pull if they really so it. Iād sue, for sure. Letās hope it doesnāt come to pass. We all remember the chaos when they proudly announced they were canceling the GV program retroactively, but fortunately that ended up not coming to pass.
No, I donāt think our hypothetical GV case is just 50-50. The court made it clear that Sephardic applicants had no legal residence. GV holders are legal residents, covered by the standard nationality law, which has consistently stated that 5 yrs of legal residence qualifies. Many GV holders made irreversible decisions based on that legal framework. I invested in a VC fund with a 10 yr term, locking in a substantial amount of capital. Whether or not I can exit later or stop renewing is not the point. The issue is whether the rules changed in a way that undermines a legitimate expectation (and once financial transactions are involved, courts are generally much tougher on changing the rules midstream). Portuguese courts have upheld that principle before, even without direct financial loss or expropriation by the state. The fact that exit is technically possible later does not undo the reliance placed on the law at the time of investment. That is a standard framework in many legal systems. I havenāt seen any evidence that Portugal is different.
Nationality may not be a constitutional right, but the expectation of being able to apply under the rules you entered with can still be protected. If not, then no Portuguese legal framework is reliable. Maybe that is what you are ultimately claiming, but I donāt think that is a fair description of Portugal or its legal system, despite the obvious mismanagement of the ARI program.
Anyway, Iāve made a rough case. It doesnāt look like weāre going to agree, but until the law changes this is all hypothetical. I am eligible to apply for citizenship in November, so Iāll know soon enough whether this entire adventure was a folly.
I take your first point, although as Iāve said, I think it is far more likely than not that anyone who currently has a card would not be subject to a retroactive increase in the residency requirements because of the obvious constitutional issues. And I donāt think this forum is lacking for people who see through GV boosterism. If anything, it can sometimes swing wildly in the other direction. Not every off-the-cuff comment by a politician in an election is worth worrying about. If they change the law, then we can all reassess our positions, but until then there are too many variables to take any meaningful action. That said, if I were not already in the system, I might think carefully before investing in Portugal given the current uncertainty.
Trying to stay calm is good advice, for sure. After all, a few years ago we were threatened with the complete retroactive cancellation of the ARI, which never came to fruition. But although the probability may be somewhat low, the damage inflicted would be very high, so itās certainly worth tracking and protesting against.
To your latter point, I think given the preexisting delays in processing, nobody should reasonably start the GV process now, regardless of the nationality laws.
Instead of researching and detailing here potential arguments against your own position (not wise in my opinion), why donāt people instead make productive use of their time by advancing arguments and steps in favor of our position? Perhaps @tkrunning can create a wiki for this topic where people can get up to date information and post sample letters or lists of addresses/emails for relevant decision makers in the government.
For example, if PSD wins the election it is very possible that they will swiftly consider changes to the residence period. I think it is important to be prepared and organized and have our voices heard by those people making these decisions.
There are at least a few ways that everyone here can help that I can think of:
There was a Whatsapp group of lawyers that some people here were communicating with during Mais HabitacƔo. I think it could be helpful if they would liason with that group (or a similar group of lawyers) that may be active on this front and post updates here of action items such as petitions, etc.
One important thing is for the lawyers to articulate a set of legal and constitutional arguments, so that for the following action items GV applicants can effectively communicate how this will harm them in proper legal terms.
Ask your own lawyer to get involved. From my past experience, you cannot necessarily rely on your lawyer. Some lawyers do not want negatively associated with the program or donāt want to be seen as a āprotestorā and from my past experience most will not be helpful. But it is still worth a try, and can help to identify those lawyers that actually care about the success of their clients. Regarding point 1 of those lawyers who do care, I think it is good to publicly name them so new applicants can support them by using their services.
Portugal highly values a reputation of being a good place to invest They are repeatedly trying to drum up investment from around the world and they desperately need investment for their economy. I think it is important to get the message out how Portugal is treating its ACTUAL investors. This could be in the form of letters/emails/phone calls to various business magazines, investors websites, expat websites, international investment groups. To the extent you can tell a story and make it personal, magazines/websites love this type of content. IMO, the message should be āIs Portugal really a good place for investment?ā or āPortugal took my investment and isnāt living up to their promises.ā I think this could be one of the more important pain points for the government because while they donāt view GV applicants as investors and they donāt care about us, they do care about other investment.
Write to politicians. After the elections, we need to develop a list of addresses of relevant politicians and send them letters detailing our situation and how such a change to the constitution is unfair, and ask them to exclude ARI from any such proposed changes. It should be respectful and polite.
Iāve sent a message to the office of the minister who made the remarks (Iām certain he knows the founders of the VC fund I invested in). It could all change post election but I thought it was worth expressing some disquiet while these policy discussions are still in formation.
Its good to let them know that there may be unintended consequences to their actions and that certain groups will put up a fight.
On the other hand, it might also be good to let sleeping dogs lie until they actually put legislation forward. My point was more to start preparing now so that if that time comes people are ready to quickly act.
Campaign language. They whole point of an ARI/Golden Visa is money in exchange for boots on the ground. If they require more physical presence in the territory, intended applicants could simply opt for the variety of visas available at almost no cost: D1, D2, D3, D4, D6, D7 etc. Message: āPortugal doesnāt want your money, go away.ā