The law takes effect one day after it is published. One can estimate that date. A month from now at the earliest. More likely later.
By the time of publication, it will have been signed off by the President (and/ or have Constitutional Court clearance if he refers it to that Court).
3 Likes
As expected, the Assembly has voted through the MH bill. Now it goes to the President.
1 Like
Was there any changes in the language of the bill?
Not since yesterday
I received an email from the realtor I am working with saying that theMais Habitação has passed and the GV will end in 2-3 weeks. I donât find other info about this bill passing.
Can anyone confirm this? Thanks
The GV is not ending. But for your realtor, it will end very soon, hence his email.
Once the President signs the bill and itâs published in the official journal, it will kill all new applications that involve real estate. Other investment types continue to exist, most notably investing in a general equity fund or venture capital fund.
Applications submitted before the law takes effect can continue, with some additional provisions.
Yes, thank you for the clarification. I had seen that there would be some other investment paths including non-real estate funds. But that real estate and real estate funds are cancelled. So it has been done.
Yes, it was been passed in the Assembly last night. It now goes to the President, who can veto it, sign it, or refer it to the Constitutional Court. So it is likely to become law at some point in the coming weeks.
So I have a few questions with the final bill:
- it lays out that the minimum stay is 7 days the first year, then 14 days in subsequent years. However, current rules give a 2 year initial visa (with a 14 day requirement) so what is this about 7 days the first year??
- if it converts to a d2 visa, will the current requirements still hold or will you somehow have to comply with the D2 instead? The wording in the law is confusing to me on this.
Hello all. How long do you think that the presidentâs approval process will take ? We are planning to buy a house in beginning of the next week. Do you think that we can make it? We already prepared all necessary documents, have the nif numbers etc. Deed and bank letter is not complete yet.
Thank you in advance!
@drlward: The original law (https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/23-2007-635814) states the following, and all other alterations refer back to the original law:
Artigo 65.Âș-C Prazos mĂnimos de permanĂȘncia
Para efeitos de renovação de autorização de residĂȘncia, os cidadĂŁos requerentes referidos no artigo 90.Âș-A da Lei n.Âș 23/2007, de 4 de julho, alterada pelas Leis n.os 29/2012, de 9 de agosto, 56/2015, de 23 de junho, e 63/2015, de 30 de junho, devem cumprir os seguintes prazos mĂnimos de permanĂȘncia:
a) 7 dias, seguidos ou interpolados, no 1.Âș ano;
b) 14 dias, seguidos ou interpolados, nos subsequentes perĂodos de dois anos.
Which in English is: Article 65- C Minimum periods of stay
For the purpose of renewing a residence permit, the applicant citizens referred to in Article 90-A of Law no. 23/2007, of July 4, as amended by Laws no. 29/2012, of August 9, 56/2015, of June 23, and 63/2015, of June 30, must comply with the following minimum periods of stay:
a) 7 days, consecutive or interpolated, in the 1st year;
b) 14 days, consecutive or interpolated, in subsequent periods of two years.
Importantly this is part of the Manual of SEF that they use to check periods/proof of stay.
1 Like
If You are in a real estate fund, then you are in a no manâs land. The new law doesnât expressly cover you and the old law has been modified to exclude you. What this means going forward is anyoneâs guess.
2 Likes
What additional provisions? My lawyers continue to say my pending application (280k real estate) isnât impacted.
The law says youâll be issued with an entrepreneurial visa, not an ARI. And that one of a number of state agencies (such as the Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation) will be required to âverify the adequacy of your investmentâ for such a visa.
I know some lawyers are saying there will be no change in practice. Iâm not sure exactly what basis they have for saying that. They may be arguing:
-
the SEF will just ignore the law (seems unlikely)
-
the Regulations will fix this
-
the list of state agencies includes the catch-all âothers that prove appropriate due to the matterâ, and this will just be a man from the local council with a clipboard, checking your apartment exists, so nothing to worry about
2 Likes
What I suspect may happen is a halt on any new concessions of RE ARIs until such time either the law is amended/corrected (which as we know happens regularly to any law) or a sub-level regulation is issued and resolves this Article 45 puzzle.
So similarly to the H1 2022 halt on any new online GV applications, which occurred even without such puzzle.
I am more optimistic about the Article 44 issue (namely the silly paragraph 4) due to the reasons I posted earlier.
Itâs much easier for SEF to ignore Article 44 para 4 in practice for ARI renewals.
3 Likes
Agree with all that. Perhaps SEF/AIMA will pluck applications backed by equity and VC funds out of the pile and approve those, since theyâre the only ones that are now free from any legal complications.
The law is fairly clear that they intended to not impact pre-existing applications. The statements out of the mouth of the PM confirm this. I suspect that SEF can just continue those previous ARI permits as they were as far as renewals, and to the extent SEF is interpreting the law in favor of the applicants, who is there to complain about this? Conversely, if they were to interpret it to disadvantage ARI holders, this would cause a lot of pushback and lawsuits without question.
4 Likes
That may be what happens. On the one hand, the SEF seems world-leading in pedantry, when it comes to, say, the date on your police certificate. On the other hand, they ignore their own legal deadlines and refuse to process applications for non-sanctioned Russians, without any real consequences.
So maybe SEF/AIMA will just ignore the law. Although it does seem bold of lawyers to swear blind to their clients that nothing will change.
(Iâm probably being too Anglo-Saxon about all this.)
3 Likes
âignore the lawâ probably is not the correct phrase. If you read Article 44, it is not written as an imperative statement. In fact, I donât think its even a complete sentence. It seems odd and out of place for a law, and leaves some room for interpretation.
2 Likes