A beautiful description of the randomness and senselessness we see on this forum every day…
For the two experts, this rule “is constitutionally unacceptable”, as it violates the principles of legal certainty, equality and human dignity. “It creates a situation of uncertainty about the start date of the period, which is no longer in the hands of the citizen and is entirely in the hands of the Administration.” Thus, two people who submit a residence application at the same time may receive approval on different dates, thus having a completely different start date for access to nationality. “No discernible reason can be found for such a distinction”, they point out.
Indeed. Not to mention the fact that everyone’s families are on completely different residency calculation schedules courtesy of the complete implosion of the renewals system. “No discernible reason" can be found for any of it.
I may be wrong, but I thought that applied only to consumer matters, and that immigration issues, or subjects such as AIMA delays, were not covered? Annex I in the Directive lists the areas included within scope.
@cj807 How about this one then: " (63) Regulation (EU) 2018/302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market and amending Regulations (EC) No 2006/2004 and (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC (OJ L 60 I, 2.3.2018, p. 1): Articles 3-5."
I would suggest we all focus now on reaching out (by whichever means possible, directly or indirectly) and informing the members of this commission, so that they could address our concerns as they massage the wording of the draft law: https://www.parlamento.pt/sites/COM/XVIILeg/1CACDLG/Paginas/Composicao.aspx
Yeah, it’s “them” haha
I have corrected the link so it points straight to the list of the commission members, which is what we need. Thanks to @yzwang!
FYI I am also trying to book a lunch with some PSD and Chega people through some personal connections, but this is less then 50/50 chance
My lawyer keeps pointing out that nationality law is separate to residency law yet no lawyer or fund agent ever mentioned this risk to me.
Since the program was always marketed even by the government - as a pathway to earn citizenship, I feel so enraged with this sudden backtrack.
The Portuguese could really learn from the Americans on how to treat immigrants fairly and how to use their existing infrastructure as an advantage or in the future there will be nothing to leverage on.
Hi - I asked our Lisbon lawyer what he considers “na sua atual redação” to mean. He replied:
That is a standard way of indicating the applicable law, adding that, of course, the version to consider is the one that is in force at any given moment.
So what? Is this some kind of loophole that lets them add whatever retroactive changes they want?
Like they can’t change the residency law to say “you can only hold GV for 3 years and then you must leave the country”. But they could change the criminal law to say “anyone who renews a GV beyond 3 years is a criminal and can be jailed for 1 year”. And then when someone argues this change is retroactive they say “oh no, criminal law is separate to residency law”?
If that’s the case, this “non retroactive” guarantee is nothing more than a meme.
Was/am about to proceed with the GV program but with all the uncertainty about the nationality, its difficult to decide what direction to head in. My lawyer says the same thing, “Nationality and immigration law are different” which if looked at in a limited scope, is fine in the sense that they can change one without the other as they are handled by different departments of the government etc. However, if you look at it in a broader light, its unfair that they can change the nationality law that doesn’t necessarily change the laws of the GV directly but does have a retroactive impact on the legal expectations of the investors which were clearly marketed and used to the fullest extent when they needed the foreign investments. Had they explicitly stated that nationality law is subject to change without notice and would be applicable to people already a part of the GV program, they would not have had as many people going for the program in the first place.
That way you are at most out some lawyer fees for uploading the initial application (a couple thousand? Maybe can negotiate it lower?) if the rug is definitively pulled. You can just liquidate your investment.
But if they add in 5-year path grandfathering for people who already applied, you might benefit from that.
