Well, last indications is that AD + IL may get 50% of parliament, and the fact that IL started talking about more strict rules is warning. IL never talked about immigration before, theoretically they should be in favor of immigration. Also Chega is very anti-immigration, and they will have 15%. The only hope is that Chega wants much stricter rules and would not vote for moderate changes.
PS with 50% majority changed nationality rules easily (added waiting time)
I spoke to my lawyer on this exact issue, and he actually disagrees with your interpretation of the applicability of the increased extension of the new nationality law on the GV. If it was applied, he stated that it was likely not legal and could be challenged in court. Myself, like yourself, I would perhaps assume that it could be applied to the citizenship of GV holders, but I would withhold the level of certainty that you have expressed until we have more information.
I think I need to just stop reading the news/this forum. There is literally nothing I can do to prevent any change, so reading about it just causes stress.
All I can do is study for my CIPLE exam and hope I can apply ASAP before any changes take effect.
@Zayd_Khoury
Frankly speaking, I really do not see how increased number of years may be not legal for GV holders and legal for everybody else. It is an absurd, because GV law does not say anything about citizenship.
May be there is a misunderstanding between you and yr lawyer, or may be between you an me. There are two different things are discussed at the moment: 1) increase number of years for citizenship required for the naturalization via residency and 2) increase time that GV holder is required to spend in Portugal in order this years were counted towards old or new number of years.
I think the lawyer was talking about the second idea. I tend to agree with him in that case. So far, for all permits time required for residence was enough that such periods are counted toward citizenship. It would be very questionable to single out GV holders. Well, they could change the rule for everybody. But it really requires serios change in the law to separate time required for residence and time required for citizenship. However, many EU countries have such a separation, so it is not completely impossible. And also, they likely could not do it retroactively. What they could do to solve the issue? Count residency time before the change using old rules, and after the change using new rules? Still contradictory and time spending. May be just change for new GV applications.
What else they could do? May be require that GV holder spend 7 days/yr during waiting time (similar to his permit) in order to be counted? Also questionable. This time is not checked for any other permits.
Or may be they will just drop the idea.
As for the increased number of years, it will affect everybody. I see nothing in the law which indicate to any exclusion of a GV holder.
Just to add a bit more clarity to the thoughts youāve already expressed:
The formal name of the Golden Visa is Residence Permit for Investment Activity, or ARI.
It is a visa for residency, not citizenship.
After holding it for 5 years youāre eligible to apply for citizenship.
If the goal posts move on citizenship while youāre still working to achieve 5 years of residency, it has nothing to do with the ARI/Golden Visa. You still have your residency visa as promised.
Nobody promised citizenship as part of the GV process. Except the marketing materials. They can change it if they want and if youāre there yet, youāre subject to the new the residency requirements of citizenship.
Honestly, while I value this community, my legal team has been spot on and upfront on most issues, and I will defer to their judgement. And to be clear, the comment was in reference to citizenship and nothing to do with residence card.
No, thatās not correct. Saying the GV program and the nationality law are ānot connectedā misunderstands how legal systems actually work (and this has been covered in other threads). They are separate statutes, but courts are required to interpret them together when they create interconnected rights and expectations. GV holders have legal residence, and 5 years of legal residence has always been the standard to apply for citizenship. GV investors relied on the full legal framework in place when they applied. Changing the rules retroactively would undermine legitimate expectations, violate legal certainty, and raise pretty serious constitutional and EU law issues. Thatās not just my personal opinion either. It is the advice I got from a grown-up legal firm that is not out there selling the GV program.
Obviously none of us can say for sure what will happen after the election. But if they try to make changes retroactive, GV holders would have strong grounds to challenge it.
Also Chega has been openly supportive of the GV program, voted against Costaās changes, and even floated bringing back the housing option, so I wouldnāt expect them to make things harder for us ā¦ although it would be naive of us to trust any politician. Our best bet is the legal system holding against the tide.
No, the GV statute does not need to mention citizenship directly for there to be a legitimate legal expectation. GV applicants were granted legal residence, and at the time they entered the program, the nationality law clearly stated that 5 years of legal residence was required to apply for citizenship. That created a legitimate expectation protected under Portuguese and EU law. Courts are required to consider the full legal framework in place when someone made a major investment, not just isolate individual statutes. And when large investments are involved, courts are very reluctant to allow governments to move the goalposts after the fact.
We have protections around legal certainty and legitimate expectations under both Portuguese constitutional law and EU law. The government might try to change the rules, but if they do, it will almost certainly end up in the constitutional court. And the court has struck down similar retroactive changes before. One possible outcome is that the new government will push for a maximal position then walk it back with some kind of transition period for people already in the system.
Do you have examples from the portuguese courts, or any other EU civil code legal system? Or you assume how it should work based on common law systems?
No, this isnāt wishful thinking based on common law assumptions. Portugalās constitutional court has blocked retroactive changes several times, like when it struck down pension cuts in 2013 and 2014 because they violated legal certainty and trust. There were similar rulings on retroactive tax changes and changes to Xmas bonus structures. Courts in Spain, Italy, and Germany have reached similar conclusions on peopleās acquired rights against after-the-fact changes. Even in EU law, legitimate expectations are a fundamental principle. Governments try all sorts of things but courts will often rule that they are not free to rewrite laws whenever they want once people have made serious decisions relying on them, and courts will look across statutes to make their determination.
Anyone is free to disagree with these interpretations of the law (that is what courts are for), but they are a matter of public record and align with the formal legal advice I have been given. It is not correct to push the line that if the government changes the law, we have no recourse. We do. Impossible to predict the outcome because this is all theoretical until the government proposes new laws, but we would arguably have a strong case in the constitutional court.
In fact, there is a direct reference in GV article saying that GV holder can apply for citizenship based on the citizenship law. I agree that expectations set for investors were based on that.
ā¦
The beneficiaries of ARI / Golden Visa are entitled to:
ā¦
No, I am not talking about retroactive changes in pension system or Xmas bonus. I am talking about citizenship and citizenship only. Do we have examples that increase in citizenship requirements such as number of years were questioned in EU courts and succeeded?
Listen, in 2024, Finland extended the standard residency period for citizenship from 5 to 8 years. The law was criticized a lot, but not questioned in courts. It affected all applications to citizenship after October 1, 2024. It was not altered for the people who received residency permits earlier but not yet accumulated required number of years. It was emphasized in media that the new law has not changed any rights of residency permit holders, and not anyway adversely affected their life in the country. They just need to wait longer if they want citizenship. Citizenship is a privilege.
I would also emphasize that there should be president or certain number of parliament members who could question new law in the Constitutional Court. And success is shaky. E.g. recently constitutional court confirmed very drastic changes in housing market which included such thing like forced renting of idle real estate. The are also no class action suits in Portugal. So everybody will need to go to court himself if president or parliament member will not question it in constitutional court, which I doubt very much.
And no, EU tries not to interfere with citizenship law. Also, Portugal has almost the weakest requirements, so EU would be happy if Portugal makes them a bit stricter.
Yes, but if number of years would be increased to 6-8, it will affect everybody and not only GV program. Chega might be against only because they will want 10 and not less. As for the higher requirement to stay in Portugal for GV holders, as I said earlier I too believe it is very contradictory to apply to old GV holders and I doubt it will pass fast. But increased number of years? No contradiction there.
I do not understand why you believe that rights of GV holders would be violated more than rights of holders of other permits. How? Knowing number of GV holders and knowing Portuguese system a bit, I see almost zero probability that there will be exception for GV holders if number of years is increased.
They will not take the right to apply for citizenship from GV holders. You will need to wait longer, thatās all.
Why donāt you take the biggest country (economy) in EU as an example to make a comparison?
Look at Germany. German citizenship was reduced in 2024 from 7 to 5 years of physical requirement and it is now allowed to have multiple citizenships along with the german one. Is it stricter or easier?
I appreciate everyoneās contributions to this topic, however I am still a bit puzzled as to why some folks would go out of their ways to find possible arguments against our own case 
Itās not like we have a lack of challenges in the process as it is 
Ultimately if the whatever new/old government decides to introduce some changes for real, why not let them come forward with their own argument, and then dismantle it like we have done successfully (for all practical purposes) in the past case of Mais HabitaĆ§Ć£o?
Letās also not forget the much bigger population of non-ARI residents who fought hard and succeeded in making the contagem de tempo to start fron the application date.
Does anyone think they would just remain silent and let it slide if some next govt. reverses the change or even increases the term? I donāt think so 
I agree with Tommi here. We should strongly advocate for our benefit or the āfairā outcome. I agree that the law is ambigious in terms of retroactivity, but we need to have atleast a bit of reality distortion field to fight the fight
I agree with that, as well. Iāve heard enough here through discussion to move to āuncertainā about the effects of an uncertain outcome. But I also think itās important to have the discussions to pollinate ideas and learn from others. More importantly, to point out to those reading there are alternate positions so people donāt hold āwhat I heardā theories as truth. That said, Iām on the side of fighting for our cause if thereās a chance to improve our position.
If they change the citizenship law to require physical presence, that will effectively remove the right from many GV holders who primarily live outside PT (and missed the boat on NHR so moving to PT would incur heavy taxes)
Why? Kind of strange question, isnāt it? Germany improved the situation, obviously nobody would question it in courts! If we are talking about legal consequences of the changes to worse we may look only to what happened after similar move in the other EU country. And yes, I know that there more countries that decreased number of years recently than increased.
We are talking about different changes.