I would love to see this bill delayed / prevented, and believe a TC referral is still theoretically possible. But my understanding is that a new referral could not be on the same grounds as before, since the TC has ruled on those questions.
Since the PS referral was pretty comprehensive, it might be hard to justify an additional referral - especially if the new bill is narrower and more compliant. If the updated bill crosses new constitutional lines, then that would be a different story.
100%. What matters now is how the bill will be rewritten. Everything is on the table and subject to the political winds in the winter/spring.
My read of the political quotes and reporting from general news sources is that it’s the other parts of the law that are more important to the Portuguese. GV applicants are a small percentage of total immigrants.
It’s more of a niche issue that isn’t high stakes to the politicians. Therefore, lobbying can have an outsized impact.
So the question is what can we do? We can contact the parties we individually have relationships with. Is there something more organized that we can do?
If you follow the money then it would be the investment firms that have the most to lose, followed perhaps by the downstream recipients of those investments.
The last one sounds to me like a compelling story. It’s not abstract like “X billions of euros invested in the economy”. Are there examples of specific projects that wouldn’t have happened or would be in danger now?
Meanwhile, I just got an email bulletin from IAS saying the following:
In particular, the Constitutional Court considered unconstitutional a provision that sought to determine that nationality applications should be assessed by reference to the date of issuance of the residence permit, rather than the date of submission of the nationality application.
According to the Court, such an approach constitutes a violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, inherent in the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Constitution, as it would frustrate the legitimate expectations of applicants with pending procedures under the legal regime applicable at the time their application was filed.
(Emphasis theirs.)
Except the court didn’t consider it unconstitutional? So, it is a somewhat baffling email.
I have taken the arduous task of reading the whole decision text today and through several translations, the court did find the the repeal of the counting method constitutional in D5 and provided several defenses in favor of the legislator (the parliament) and against the applicant (PS). They relied heavily on the fact that it was exceptional as evidenced by the exposition of intention which accompanied the amendments back in 2024, which admitted that the intention was to compensate for the delays caused by AIMA. In every contested point brought by PS the court defended the legislation except for the point related to the situation where by the disappearance of the previous law some applicants will see their accumulated time reduced retrospectively, to this point the ruling deferred judgment on this case to D7 because it was a question of transition between successive laws and not the constitutionality of the repeal which is prescriptive in nature.
So, by simply reading the whole decision points under D5 one may conclude the repeal is constitutional but it is wrong to assume that there cannot be a transitional (grandfathering) rule for those who already saw their residence time increase under existing framework. The reason becomes clear in the analysis of D7 which concerns the transition framework.
In D7, the court decided the transition regime is unconstitutional. It provided several defenses in favor of the applicant (PS) and against the legislator (the parliament) including cases affected by change in the counting method. See below:
Now, by reference pending proceedings, without prejudice to the fact that the applicant is aware, at the time of the submission of the application pursuant to Article 6(1) LdN, which legal diploma could soon be amended, in the sense of a greater requirement, knew the applicant who could count on that, in the procedure which had already initiated, in the then-current regime, the fact constitutive of his request of acquisition of nationality by naturalization would be the decision of the authority competent public, with all other consequences well illustrated by the case law of the instances already mentioned.
Just as it could count, in the situation referred to in Article 15(4) LdN, that the method of counting of your legal period of residence, as a de facto situation to have in account for the deferral of your request, would be the one that resulted from the regime in force at the time of the request and not another.
Watch what ends of exposing themselves, and by not offering reasons for the need for a that, in reality, is a , At the same time it is natural that the applicant, awaiting the decision of the applications he has already submitted, invest in the confidence generated by legislative behavior, from the outset because a decision to obtain citizenship is a structuring decision in the life of any person.
Verified a situation of trust attributable to the legislator, it remains to determine whether the frustration of expectations legitimate applicants in the applicability of the scheme that is extracted from the legislation in force on the date of submission of the application may be justified by reasons of public interest or for other constitutional considerations relevant. It is a judgment of proportionality, in which ponders the severity of the sacrifice of confidence and the weight of the reasons for this sacrifice.
As shown above the court did find the transition regime insufficient to protect the trust and confidence of the applicants in the legal framework, including the case of applicants with time periods counted under the previous framework no longer eligible. You will not find a sentence that says “Hey, you must put a transition regime for people who had delays” because TC is not a legislator and it is not their business to direct parliament on what to put in the transition article, they only need to specify that it breaches trust and confidence to conclude that it was insufficient from a constitutional perspective. They provided examples, including an example of someone who had already accumulated 5 years using the old counting formula, but they are not obligated to cite and mention every possible example. Not explicitly mentioning someone who has accumulated a portion does not mean they were not a possible example, and they were right to use the example of someone who has accumulated the 5 years fully because that was a strong defense argument, not that someone who has 4 years and some months was not worthy of protection.
The parliament cannot pass a revision without a transitional regime because that is required under the constitution.
What this means is that GV investors who have already applied and who have already obtained the residence permit PRIOR to the effective date of the final revision of this law can expect to count their time from application date. Otherwise it will be from card date, because the TC did not find a legitimate expectation for this class people in D5 as they are not reasonably believed to have had the intention to request nationality before they applied and were granted a residence permit (i.e. you still don’t know if you will be allowed in Portugal) and also because the previous law stipulated that the request must be approved to benefit from this exception. It would also be illegal to extend the operation of a repealed law indefinitely in the future as such would deprive parliament of its legislative power.
Those biometrics appointments in January, February and March are very valuable it seems.
jesus great job @lifedreamer!!! 
Amazing insight, thank you for taking the time to lay this all out.
What this means is that GV investors who have already applied and who have already obtained the residence permit PRIOR to the effective date of the final revision of this law can expect to count their time from application date.
So it sounds like while potentially there is some hope it is rather flimsy, since even those of us who have a January-March biometrics appointment may still not receive our cards in time to qualify, assuming AIMA continues to take 6+ or 10+ months to issue them after taking the money.
Somehow, I do not think the current damage to investor confidence will be much repaired by this judgment.
Interesting, since you specifically mentioned D7 I went and read it more carefully and came to the opposite conclusion:
The example the court gives is of someone who applies for nationality on the basis of 5 years since residence application but still has no card. The court argues this person should be protected provided their card is issued in future (meaning all their time from application should count, indeed their citizenship application relies entirely on time between application and card issuance).
I don’t see D7 granting ANY protection to people who haven’t submitted citizenship applications before the law changes.
The above discussion is exactly why we need qualified lawyers to opine on this. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, even AI seems to be interpreting these clauses (in particular D7) and their implications on grandfathering / transitional regime in different (and sometimes antithetical) manners. Certainly, the next steps in the political process will be what defines outcomes relevant to us as GV applicants, but I think a legal reading will be helpful to understand the ramifications of this judgement. I find it quite baffling that we have not heard a single peep in that regard yet…
You are correct in your assumption that D7 does not address people who haven’t submitted a citizenship application that is because they are not the subject of article 7 in ts current form. However your assumption that the ruling is not applicable for people who have not submitted a citizenship application is wrong. At the end of ruling you will find this sentence:
Verified a situation of trust attributable to the legislator, it remains to determine whether the frustration of expectations legitimate applicants in the applicability of the scheme that is extracted from the legislation in force on the date of submission of the application may be justified by reasons of public interest or for other constitutional considerations relevant.
This highlights an issue of public trust with the legislator for not including in the exposition of motives the reasons of public interest or other considerations to deprive applicants from the applicability of a scheme that provided eligibility for them (including schemes which predates citizenship applications).
Later you will find this statement:
Reasons of interest are known public that underlie the changes to the LdN, from the outset, those that were advanced by the legislator in the Exposition of Motives that precedes the Proposal of Law No. 1/XVII/1.a. However, the legislator does not offer any reason of interest public so that the legislative amendment advocated, in addition to having application immediate to the new procedures, also apply to facts immediately who were born in the past, but who are still in formation at the time when the New law comes into force.
This says the reasons for public interest were made in the exposition of motives, regarding the nationality law changes as a whole, and it was reasonable that it was within the legislator’s discretion to choose whether to affect the current procedures immediately or delay the implementation. However, no reasons of public interest were made with regards to affecting procedures immediately and in such a way that they cancel applicability of facts born prior to the implementation of the law or facts that are still in formation (this includes schemes which rely on facts that predates the citizenship application, e.g. adoption).
The above means the legislator must delay implementation of all or part of the legislation to protect expectations OR include a specific transitional regime OR specify the reasons for public interest for depriving applicants from their legitimate expectations. This remedial nature of these options clearly suggest they’re extendable to people who have not yet submitted their citizenship application
But would that leave the later appointments useless? Especially when appointments scheduling do not follow chronological order with original application?
This is encouraging for those who receive their cards before any new law takes effect. But do we know whether we’d be counting 5 years as per the current law or a possible 7 or 10 years as per any new law? In other words, would any transition regime have to preserve legitimate exceptions pertaining to the residence period as well as the counting method?
What this also means is that a law tying something as important as Nationality eligibility to the AIMA random number generator is categorically insane 
One just needs to look at this example:
| Event | me | John |
|---|---|---|
| Application | 13 Feb 2023 | 6 Mar 2023 |
| Biometrics (both ‘old process’) | 17 Dec 2024 | 6 Jan 2025 |
| Final approval | still waiting today  |
22 Sep 2025 |
| Residence card (Primary) | " | 5 Nov 2025 |
| Residence card (Dependent) | " | 28 Nov 2025 |
I also have examples of ‘old process’ people applying after us getting their GV permits back in April '25 - or even last summer (2024).
I know some will suggest this is a clear basis for a lawsuit, but we’ve already been through suing and appealing for GV Bio appointments and that was useless. I have zero faith in PT’s overburdened legal system.
The counting of the waiting time for residency card was introduced in the law with a clear wording nearly two years ago, and we still have difficulty to observe any real life consequences of its application yet. So i think it is a bit of extreme optimism to interpret small hints in the TC sentences that will lead to a comprehensive grandfathering clause in the next bill, e.g. for all residency applications pending. I wish it would, but looking at the developments i see that the government clearly do not want any grandfathering for most of the immigrant population. The GV investors are only a side casualty for them. I believe they know they are actually killing the current GV program.
I am deeply disappointed that the decision of TC did not support our case clearly and openly. The only hope for our case is PS backing us in the next negotiation phase, if any negotiation occurs.
Not sure what you mean here. Haven’t citizenship applications already been submitted based on 5 years residency counting from application date as per the current law? I realise we haven’t seen any citizenship outcomes yet due to the long processing times and the fact this is still fairly recent, but what other ‘real life consequences of it’s application’ are you thinking of?
People who’ve tried to get some clarity going into their Nationality applications have been requesting CdT’s - with usual random AIMA results:
The information you added under “Let me share my experience today at AIMA Setúbal” is too old, in Feb 2025. It will create a lot of confusion so I think you should delete it.
It took almost one year to hear from the government to accept that the count is now beginning from the application and i am not sure they even publish the details of procedure yet.
And it takes too long to have a confirmation officially. I could place a submission without a cdt on my hand but even that submission was registered four months later on the IRN site only after the government decided to take back and revise the bill in summer. and i was looking to the news and IRN site with great anxiety and fear every morning .
This opens up the whole can of worms though, as the duration of residence is just one criterion for the successful citizenship application, so if the TC is saying that someone who satisfied one criterion but not all and still submitted their citizenship application must be protected, then what precludes taking an example of any other criterion and applying the same protection logic to the applicant?
E.g. can I take my A2 certificate and lodge an IRN application now (under the current favourable law), expecting that I will eventually complete my 5-year term which is to be protected and counted from the date of my residence application?
I admit I have read the entire D7 section myself but still cannot figure out all possible scenarios it implies..
Have any of the political parties posted a response to the ruling or a proposed timeline?
I looked and find it kind of strange that they did not have press releases ready for possible outcomes to keep their momentum going into the upcoming elections. Or was there no point since it’s likely punted till they reconvene Jan 7th? Or does it signal that they may wait till after presidential elections or maybe the new president is seated?
Folks, here’s a fresh petition to parliament, requesting the things we want like a transitional regime.