This is not strictly true - Portugal has the HQA visa which is not a GV but also has special (in fact technically 0!) stay requirements. Itās possible they want to rework the GV to fit under the HQA framework.
3 Likes
As the lawyers mentioned, the PM seems to want to convert GV to D2 entrepreneur, scientific research, cultural, etc visas, all of which do not enjoy the reduced stay requirements. The repeated emphasis on ānormalā residency permit would also carry no significance in your interpretation.
It is very light on details though, it sounds like the concrete bill and proposals wonāt be revealed until after Easter break/ April 9th.
2 Likes
This provide a bit more information on the government proposal:
https://www.portugal.gov.pt/download-ficheiros/ficheiro.aspx?v=%3D%3DBQAAAB%2BLCAAAAAAABAAzNDYztwQAeoAZVwUAAAA%3D
Page 12 regarding the end of Golden Visa with Google Translate:
End of Golden Visas
-
Purpose:
End the general regime for granting Golden Visas, without prejudice to admissibility
of residence permits for investment under the terms of the general regime -
How it works:
New Gold Visas cannot be granted as of February 16, 2023. In the case of gold visas requested and not yet granted, it is safeguarded that those who are pending from the SEF or pending prior control procedures in the
municipalities, are unofficially processed in the residence permit regime for entrepreneurial immigrants.
In the case of renewal of those already assigned, every two years, it is safeguarded
for the reconversion of the residence permit into a permit for immigrants
entrepreneurs and provided that the respective requirements are met, duly assessed
by the competent authorities to verify the entrepreneurial project in progress. O
4 Likes
Do we know what are the chances of this actually passing the parliament? How much support does the current proposal have in terms of votes etc?
1 Like
Thank you @spencer for the in depth analysis. Apparently we should start thinking about looking for a group lawsuits in case the current proposal is approved as it is. We all invested in Portugal under a certain rules and regulations and changing those rules after making the investment without granting the expected outcomes is from my perspective a theft
8 Likes
I definitely would have kept my investment and simply applied for a D7 if I wanted to move immediatelyā¦
5 Likes
āI have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further.ā
At this point even if they allow GVs to continue with low residency requirements, who knows that they wonāt pull the rug on citizenship (now or later)?
The Gold has worn off the Golden Visas and there is nothing valuable underneath.
2 Likes
Posted further up by Incrediblehulk
3 Likes
Another interesting article on Portuguese property and ARI
Portuguese property - an investment as safe as houses - Portugal Resident
2 Likes
This raises the question of damages for such delays. Had applications been processed in a timely manner many applicants, me included, would have GVās under current rules.
Certainly something I will consider if only to recover my application & associated fees.
Iām fortunate (relatively speaking) in that I can convert to another visa if needed, but the GV was / is the best & simplest if you could put up the funds imho 
2 Likes
Many other posters have covered the potential problems this proposal raises, but I would like to highlight a few things that might end up working in our favor.
-
The Prime Minister is at least gesturing at the principle of protection of the security of legal rights of submitted applicants and visa holders. He is also seemingly conceding that he cannot unilaterally bar applicants after the mere announcement of a policy, and that the cut-off date will be decided by the actions of legislature, which differs from the position the previous legal text took. Ultimately, whether the enacted proposal ends up doing enough on this, or if further relief has to be sought from the courts, it is still better than earlier proposal where there were simply new rules applied retroactively without any effort to protect the rights of current holders or applicants.
-
He says that D2 issuance will be based on āthe criteria that are currently foreseen for their [ARI] renewalā. Potentially, this could be argued to extend to a reduced stay requirement. After all, the stay requirement is part of the criteria for renewal. It seems like this may be a very fruitful path, actually. The PM seemed to place his highest priority, both with the original and the revised proposal, on getting rid of the idea of the thing called the āARIā, where investor applicants get āspecial treatmentā. If what it takes to make that happen and still protect everyoneās rights is that current ARI holders and applicants get visas that are called D2s instead of being called ARIs, so be it. All the investor really needs to care about is that the D2 is still are issued based on the ARI criteria.
-
Generally, the proposed legal text has been less extreme than the statements at press conferences, in the slides, or the summary bullet points. During the last round, the verbal statements were that ALL ARI holders could only renew under certain conditions, but the legal text suggested instead that some categories must meet the new conditions, and the other categories were left untouched. We donāt yet have the new legal text, so weāre left with just the summary statements, which has in the past tended to be a worst case scenario.
I would agree that the programās outlook is worse than it was six months ago, but Iām not sure that itās all hopeless just yet.
3 Likes
A big discrepancy I see with Media and Politicians describing us is that we are āwealthy investorsā who have lot of spare money to waste. But thatās not true. In fact, I would argue it was not designed for wealthy investors from the get go. If they really targeted wealthy investors, they would have not only asked for an investment, but they would have asked us to show a net worth of 1-2 million as well.
For many of us, these are life savings. Portugal sold a dream, and in the end, not keeping their end of the bargain. Only 22 projects created jobs? What about all the lawyers who received work, what about all the translators who received work, the airlines who got our money just for 5 mins of taking pictures in SEF office? a week of forced vacation in portugal that helped all the locals, hotels, cp.pt?
The real lost cost is much higher to me. The opportunity cost of putting the funds to good use. All the time spending thinking about this. Anxiety?
If what is mentioned in the proposal becomes a law, this is clearly a bait and switch program, which targeted a rare set of immigrants, who were not poor but not rich either but struggle in their current situation and dreamed for a better future for their kids. How is this different from the plight of all the other immigrants that EU is trying to help?
14 Likes
As one of the folks who invested via a VC fund, I have real trouble working out what happens for people like us. If we can continue to renew but are required to be here 183 days, I can probably make that work for the final year (since weāre already renewed up to the end of the 4th), but I am not sure what other visa I could shift to if I have to shift to one of the existing types. They could change D3 to accommodate us, but there are so few of us I suspect they wonāt. Iām also really concerned about what happens to our eldest, who will be over 18 by that point. Assuming college, heād still be a dependent under the GV rules, but he might not be able to qualify for the final 183 day requirement.
I guess the biggest question is when do we expect the layers to have gotten a handle on all this?
4 Likes
I agree with you. They are taking the retroactive approach because they know by doing so, no public sympathy will be shed on us so call āwealthy foreign investorsā, who are to some extent āon the opposite sideā of innocent EU citizens . In this sense, we have become the minority who they can take advantage of and have no consequences. I donāt know if they are deliberate or they donāt understand our situations, but they are asking a lawsuit by doing so.
4 Likes
Keeping in mind that your GV, under this proposal, would revert into a basic residence visa at your first renewalā¦
1 Like
A good analogy is a flight to letās say Amsterdam. If the airline cancels your flight then the eu requires the airline to reimburse you .
Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (āRegulation EU261ā
Since Portugal is cancelling the renewal
Process relied upon , Portugal at the very least should be required to refund all investments and expenses to everyone.
An interesting aside is that Portugal charges 7000 euros for a GV permit but then wants to conveniently switch people to a d7 that costs 200 euros. Itās outright wrong and undermines trust in the government.
But itās more than that because Portugal took the benefit of the transaction ( the investment and fees ) and now wants to cancel the corresponding award of residence to investors. It simply doesnāt work like this in first world countries. There is no way that this can stand or Portugal is no better than Venezuela or Cuba. Itās not legal in any sense for one because it violates fundamental human rights and property rights. I hope that someone has the courage to stand up to this .
9 Likes