Hmmmm… this is also very interesting and is making the rounds. https://youtu.be/EsASl58jSSU?feature=shared
1 Like
Well, it’s a rather one-sided view as it fails to mention in what sad state most properties were prior to revitalisation of real-estate investments that GV programme has brought. It also fails to mention just how much intra-European migration to Portugal occurred once it has been “discovered”.
But it is interesting to see how the plagues of Portugal are being portrayed to the general public. Thanks for posting.
2 Likes
The YouTube channel is from Mexico, which has also been “discovered” by Americans 
. The video was posted 7 days ago, so it probably reflects the sentiment on the ground that led to this:
Interesting… though not surprising.
Also, that’s explains why it was so much easier for me to understand the Spanish in the video. 
1 Like
As a miscellaneous data point in the “na sua” debate, one of the lawyers I contacted at the outset quoted this translation of the SEF guidelines in the introductory email message (late 2020):
“with the current wording” makes clear sense (in contrast to “subject to future changes” or the like.)
That email message framed my expectations for the program, based on official guidance from SEF.
3 Likes
Thanks for checking.
Everything in law is considered in light of non-retroactivity and legal certainty. This is why I’ve always conceded that your reliance argument might work.
What I’ve been cautioning folks against, is seeing the word “atual” and is convinced it means “the version of the Nationality Law that was current as of the time any GV applicant applied for GV.” This amounts to some very innovative statute interpretation.
“As amended” is used to do exactly the opposite: Supposed Statute A (passed in 2010) incorporates Statute B (first passed decades ago, but last amended in 2020) by reference. Without “as amended,” I could actually argue that when lawmakers voted for Statute A in 2010, they only knew what Statute B looked like at the time, and couldn’t possibly have known what Statute B would be amended to a decade later. So to suit my own position in court, I could argue that the old version of Statute B should apply to me.
Now think about a country with hundreds or thousands of statutes, oftentimes all referring to each other. To prevent the legal system from going crazy, lawmakers sprinkle “as amended” throughout legislations to communicate their intent that the latest future versions apply. To go back to my example, back in 2010 when lawmakers passed Statute A, they didn’t know when or how Statute B would be amended in the future, but their intent was for the future, latest Statute B (“as amended”) to apply, without having to amend every other law that refers to Statute B.
This is why I called this a rather technical, non-controversial point, which is separate from “but I reasonably relied”. Still happy to be convinced otherwise.
1 Like
@yzwang I agree with much of what you’ve written here. I think the key legal question is if (for some of us at least) a sufficient legal relationship with the nationality law has already been established through actions like making a large qualifying investment, meeting residency requirements, passing the language test, paying for multiple renewals etc. such that the version of the law that should apply to our citizenship application is the one currently in force, not the proposed amendment that might apply on the date we hand in the citizenship application forms. This wasn’t the case for eg. the Sephardic framework, which had very few commitments and no multi-stage process. That’s the basis for an argument around legal certainty and non-retroactivity. The phrase na sua atual redação (or for that matter, as amended) doesn’t give governments a blank check to rewrite expectations retroactively. If it did, no contract or legal framework would be worth the paper it’s written on. This is an especially strong argument when investments are involved, as they are in our case, because no one would make investments without some legal stability. As I’ve said, I wouldn’t claim this is a foregone conclusion, but then again very few legal cases are or we wouldn’t have the need for courts.
1 Like
Huh? Malta? Non refundable investment of $750k+? No thank you I’d stick to Portugal with my 20% annual returns for now 
Not many of us are multimillionaires throwing money away like that.
1 Like
I get what you are saying. To continue with my hypothetical case, suppose I availed myself of Statute A after 2010 but before 2020, say in 2015, to make an investment decision in 2015. Clearly, I would have read Statute A and Statute B in their 2015 versions and relied on them. After 2015 but before 2020, suppose I continued to rely on the old version of Statute B, and did a bunch of other things that cost time + money.
Does this reliance allow me to argue an “unbreakable legal bond” with the old version of Statute B?
-
If “Statute A”= ARI laws and “Statute B”= tax laws, then the answer appears to be no, otherwise NHR1.x would not have gone away. The government could argue that the only “reasonable” expectation with regards to tax laws is that tax laws change from time to time, so expecting NHR1.x to stick around forever is “unreasonable.”
-
If “Statute A”= ARI laws and “Statute B”= the Nationality Law, maybe we have a stronger case here because Article 90 specifically refers to the Nationality Law “na sua atual redação”, but not tax laws. But is it reasonable to expect the Nationality Law to remain the same forever? Or to only become more favourable over time? Who knows.
As you can see, the question is back to “was the reliance reasonable?” again, where (to me at least) the legal principle often seems to be “if the law proves to be too draconian, let’s use court of equity / principle of reliance aka reasonable expectations to help out some innocent people.” Personally I’m waiting for more written opinions from constitutional scholars to see where the bookends are.
Oh, roughly no one lives there in CDMX terms, but this is where you find the “digital nomads” with laptops. The neighborhood is pretty nice. But, if you examine a little further, you’ll find that it is in the old lake bed. Whenever a big earthquake hits next, those buildings will get the worst of it.
I think the protest is more about the “MacBook people”. Something I’ve noticed in Lisbon as well. I’ll use an iPhone in a cafe, but not a laptop. That seems like a big culture clash.
2 Likes
I don’t think courts are weighing vague ideas like “unbreakable bonds” or general fairness in quite the way you’re framing it. That kind of reasoning feels more like LLM logic. There’s no court of equity in Portugal. They will look at the actual legal text, if there’s retroactive effect, and if any concrete expectations were created. It’s not just about whether reliance feels reasonable in theory. The bar’s higher and the analysis is more formal than that. If you’ve got a good lawyer, I’d talk to them once there’s more clarity. As entertaining as this is, we’re not giving anyone much that’s actually useful.
1 Like
Of course there is no court of equity in Portugal. I did not expect one to spring up either. What I meant was reliance is very much a court of equity argument, as opposed to court of law, in the common law systems at least; the same sentiment is addressed in different forms in civil law systems e.g. all your talks of “expectations.”
With all due respect, I haven’t seen your lawyer’s legal opinion. I’m not asking to see it, and I shouldn’t see it. But what you have repeated here feels quite “LLM logic” to me as well—I would need to see the Constitution + past rulings of the Constitutional Court + legal reasonings in those past rulings applied to the facts here, which of course you are under no obligation to provide. This is why I said I’m waiting for more opinions from constitutional scholars to see where the bookends are. (I would note that even the opinion “requested by Liberty Legal,” presumably the bookend most friendly to us, did not specifically address the 5-to-10 year question.)
If I’m still somewhat convinced after seeing the more final language of the law, I might pay for a legal opinion and might reach out to you for recommendations 
. Can’t afford constitutional lawyers every day.
I appreciate the good conversation.
2 Likes
No, but I’ve been following their developments
The revised program is likely investment-based rather than being a donation because the government cannot have financial interest as per the latest ruling.
@frond-exiles-0q Can you please name the funds that delivers average 20% Per Year ? Optimize ?
Unless there is a transition provision, the final language of the law is only going to be the start of an uphill battle.
I don’t know about the average, no one does. But as long as it continues to deliver I will jot complain.
Optimize is +20% for 6 months. That is in addition to the dollar weakening. So I am very happy with my decision so far; even if it doesn’t pay off.
1 Like
I would be cautious in taking a plunge now having known what we know so far. There is particularly an opinion(a concerning one) that is published about the intent of government making June 19th as the cutoff date and it nullification effect on Legal certainty and legitimate expectation to the applications that are submitted after June 19th.
Please refer this post once, it was posted in whats app group.
The comments in this LinkedIn post are spot on. These comments are from actual Portuguese experts in law, real estate, tax. I would trust these experts more than some people on this forum who keep repeating the same “we are doomed. prove me wrong” like chicken little.
3 Likes