If the law changes in 2026 and you get your card in 2027 you may be able to argue that your time from 2022-2026 counts under the old law (since the card was eventually issued) and time from 2027 counts under the new law, with a one year gap. But I’m not an expert, just spitballing here.
And in that case I think it’d be fair to try sue all the way up to the Constitutional Court since they literally argued that it’s only fair to not count the time from application because “the backlog is solved” which if you only get your card in 2027, is obviously not true!
Do you mind PM’ing me the contact of the lawyer who brought up the point in your WhatsApp group? I’m going to talk to some litigators after the holidays, to see whether it makes sense to throw 6k EUR at AIMA in April for the option value, or just walk away from this mess.
There is a bit of misinformation going on on this thread, stemming from not understanding how legal opinions are drafted and also for using AI models to ask questions about it. Legal opinions can include many contradictory statements because they are not meant to be coherent or fact finding, and this can throw LLMs into a situation where they have to pick one theme (usually the first encountered one) and discard or ignore the rest. An example of this with regard to loss of nationality for serious crimes you will see discussion of details and regarding certain crimes that are acceptable but that matter as a whole is rejected because it creates two classes of citizens. What this means is that if parliament applied it to everyone (which could be an option) only terrorism and crimes against the state can be considered constitutional.
In the TC ruling the amendment regarding counting time from application date is constitutional and changing it back to card date is also constitutional. The TC doesn’t given opinion regarding impact on current applicants because this is not the intention of the TC framework it is neither an executive nor a legislative body it is simply a court and the matters before it are not brought by GV investors only the parties in parliament arguing the constitutionality of the change. But in other parts of the opinion you will find the TC has issue with legitimate expectation of people who have already met the requirements under this rule
7 Likes
tkrunning
(Thomas K. Running)
Split this topic
2075
These are nice noble words, but the legislature will have to fill in what happens to current applicants (defined as GV applicants / holders who have not submitted citizenship applications), and the legislators clearly want to screw all the MI visa holders from 2021 onwards, GV applicants, or both. If the next-revised Nationality Law / regulations do not spell it out, then current applicants will have to sue, all the way up to TC, to find out what the law of the land is.
I’m sincerely hoping that whatever the revised legislation ends up being, that it does another tour of the constitutional court as the deadline for myself and family is Oct/Nov 2026. It’s very touch and go for us, unless for some reason there is some major delay.
What are the remaining methods of sending this law to the TC?
I understand the ‘preventive review’ has been spent, but what’s left still on the table? And by whom a further review can be initiated? PS again, or not anymore?
I question your premise. The law was rejected; it is not relevant to challenge it further. If a new or revised law is passed, it can be challenged by any of the same parties who had standing to challenge it before.
I had heard during discussions earlier that the TC was obliged to restrict its judgement only to whatever was referred to it. Can some other part(s) of the law not be referred at some later stage ?
Further, now that this law (or should it be referred to as ‘bill’) has been returned to the legislature does it not die ? Wouldn’t the amended bill presented to the legislature be considered a totally new one from legal point of view ? Exposing it to a full new review ?
Yes, my understanding is that we will have a new bill, with the usual steps. So the President (or MPs) can refer it back to the TC. But if he refers the same clauses, I guess he should expect the same answer.
I was asking about the options of sending the revised law, when it is approved by AR, to the TC.
If this is going to be a ‘new law’ anyway then a preventive review could be again a possibility (which is good).
Why wouldn’t parliament just amend and push through a new version as they did with the foreigners’ law? If they superficially address the TC objections, this will give them political cover to pass it.
Supporting lobbying efforts in parliament for a more moderate bill seems like the next option available.
