In the case of Spain GV to naturalization, you need 10 years āfull timeā in Spain?
Of course! Strange even to discuss. If they want to decrease number of people wanting naturaluzation why to hurt citizens? It is stupid. The easiest and most effective way is to increase requirements for naturalization e.g. the number of years.
Permanent residence (usual, not GV) is cheap and more or less fast. Still problematic to get slots, but possible. Lot of immigrants are getting it.
It is not clear when and how successful they will do such an increase, but if it happens, I doubt that there will be any exception for investors. It will require to change a lot. We should not forget that GV holders receive their passports not as investors, but as usual residents during 5 yr. IRN even does not know that the applicant had GV. There are no such info in the application.
Not an expert, but only limited absences are allowed for time to count to naturalisation. Spain GV is no longer taking applications.
Remember Spain is only 2 years for Latin Americans. So for Brazilians, Portugal at 5 years was a little slower but at least same language. Portugal at 10 years is clearly an inferior option to Spain.
Iād be pretty cautious on what anyone says at this moment. I think the biggest problem here is how do you define āretroactiveā. Is it
- Anyone who is currently on any type of residence visa has to abide by the the new citizenship rules, but those who have already applied for citizenship before the law takes place are grandfathered to the old rules
- Anyone who has GV or applied to GV is somehow exempt and grandfathered to the old rules. Everyone else with regular permits (i.e. d7,d8 etc) have to follow new rules unless they have already applied for citizenship.
Unfortunately, I believe it will be the first one, thatās how it works in most western countries, whenever citizenship rules change, unless you already applied before the change, you will be stuck with the new rules. I donāt see how this is against that eu law of āretrospectivenessā or whatever it is called, because the GV is just that, a VISA not a citizenship, you just have the right the apply for citizenship like any other permit.
I have a strong feeling they are going to tie physical residence to citizenship rather than up the amount of time significantly.
Iām not sure, I donāt think itās GVs people are angry with this time, I think they are angry that 400,000 MI were let in so easily. Those 400,000 will easily meet physical residence.
People saying that Portugal canāt or wonāt create separate rules for ARI holders are missing the point. These ARI investors are unique in the way that changes to the Constitution would affect them, so unique application of the law is a necessity to avoid Constitutional issues.
Take the example of an ARI holder who invested 500,000 euros in Portugal for 5 years as required by Portuguese law based on statements and promises and existing laws that gave the investor the right to apply for citizenship after 5 years. The Portuguese government effectively confirmed these expectations by amending the Constitution in 2024 to clarify the 5 years was, in fact, 5 years, despite delays in processing. Many people have literally made changes to their lives in anticipation of this 5 year period.
Changing this period to 10 years substantially and materially harms these investors, particularly with regard to the investorās legitimate expectations.
More importantly, the very nature of these changes uniquely affects ARI residence permit holders. The reason for this is quite obvious at its core. Most other categories of residence permits such as D7, D8, etc would be inconvenienced, but not directly harmed by a change from 5 years to 10 years. Since most of these others are already living in Portugal, requiring them to live in Portugal 5 more years does not materially change their status quo. In the case of ARI, it could directly and irreversibly harm investors. In the most severe cases, some peopleās investments in funds would be liquidated after the end of the fund, and they would have no way to continue complying with the law.
There are several strong legal arguments that could prevent Portugal from retroactively changing its laws to the detriment of investors. As I have noted in the past, ARI residence permit holders are not simply residents, they are first and foremost investors who have relied on statements and promises from the government to induce the injection of significant capital into Portugal. This is captured by the principal of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty. The OP was right to note these principles.
These principles are firmly rooted in both EU law and Portuguese law.
Principle of Legal Certainty
āThe principle of legal certainty requires that rules of law be clear, precise and predictable in their effects.ā
Principle of Legitimate Expectations
- If individuals act based on existing law and have justified expectations that certain legal conditions will remain stable, a retroactive change may violate this principle.
This principle is especially strong when public authorities have made representations or assurances, or where individuals have made investments or long-term decisions based on the law.
These principles do not prevent a Member State like Portugal from changing naturalization or residence laws, but they do constrain:
- Retroactive application of more onerous conditions to those who relied in good faith on previous laws.
- The way in which those changes are implemented, especially if they disrupt existing legal positions, long term investments or expectations without adequate transitional provisions or periods of time.
8 Likes
Good comment, well reasoned.
(This is a reply to the prior message from portugalwanderer; the forum loses those attributions sometimes for reasons unknown.)
If youāre replying to the immediately prior comment it wonāt mark it.
But you can always quote a snippet like Iām doing here 
1 Like
@goncalomendesleal
Iām still unclear why non-GV immigrants could not make the same ālegitimate expectationsā and ālegal certaintyā arguments. They moved their entire lives here, perhaps their families too, started working in PT because it promised more economic and citizenship value than other countriesā¦ arenāt those justified expectations as well?
If the legal courts found that GVs deserved special treatment beyond other immigrants, the court of public opinion would hate us even more. āI moved my life, family, everything to Portugal. Some rich guy tossed a spare 500k into the country and gets special treatment??ā Many blamed GVs for the housing crisis. Think of how this would play out - including a similar political response to the outrage.
(I know 500k isnāt merely spare cash for many of us, but when people are vilifying GVs they just see us all as rich foreigners.)
3 Likes
@goncalomendesleal Sr. Leal, by ācurrent applicants,ā do you mean people who have applied for GV, including those whoāve not clocked enough time to apply for naturalisation? If so, how do you distinguish a GV holder (who has not applied for naturalisation yet) from a Sephardic Jew who was āin the queueā when changes to the Nationality Law came into effect last year?
Please refer to the following summary of ruling from the Constitutional Court:
https://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/en/acordaos/20240128s.html
Much of the language in this summary of ruling can apply to GV holders as well, including, for example:
VIII - The acquisition of nationality is a legal option and cannot be considered a form of exercise of any right, freedom or guarantee [ā¦]
XI - Because it is not a legal right, the protection of the possibility of naturalisation for descendants of Sephardic Jews is less robust when compared to retroactive or retrospective legislative changes, especially as we are dealing with a case of retrospectivity.
Comparing a GV holder vs a Sephardic Jew applying to naturalise:
- Similarities: both are trying to acquire nationality, which āis a legal option and cannot be considered a form of exercise of any right, freedom or guaranteeā
- Differences:
- GV holder has residency card and various other connections to Portugal, such as property/investment in Portugal;
- the Sephardic Jew doesnāt necessarily have any of these.
Comparing a GV holder vs tax/pension cases (for which Iām told reliance interest has consistently been upheld by the Portuguese Constitutional Court):
- Similarities: involves money; investments were made, in reliance on a set of laws that were in force at the time the investments were made
- Differences:
- Without knowing what they are, I assume in the tax/pension cases, changes in tax laws etc. caused measurable money damages to the plaintiffs that are easy to prove;
- For a GV Holder, you are free to stop renewing your GV at anytime, and free to cash out of your GV investment once the time restrictions from ARI law and contract are over. So the state did not take/expropriate money from you. One could argue opportunity costs, because better investments are available elsewhere if one didnāt get lured into GV hoping to obtain nationality, but good luck proving this as damages. One could argue nationality itself is the cost, but if itās not a right then surely itās not property.
1 Like
This is what Chega wantsā¦
The more relavant part isā¦
The party also wants those who wish to become naturalized to be required to prove āthe existence of an effective connection to the national communityā, āhave the capacity to govern themselves and ensure their subsistenceā, in addition to passing a ānational integration and citizenship testā and proving that they āhave sufficient knowledge of the Portuguese languageā.
Andā¦
Currently, the law provides that these children can automatically acquire Portuguese nationality if one of the parents has been legally residing in Portugal for at least two years. The Chega bill proposes that this period be increased to six years for citizens of Portuguese-speaking countries and ten years for others.
This will be continuous story for some timeā¦
āA bill of this nature had already been presented by Chega in 2021, when AndrĆ© Ventura was the sole deputy, but it had not been accepted by the Assembly of the Republic, after the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms and Guarantees considered it to be unconstitutional, as it violates principles of fundamental law such as equal treatment or the prevention of any punishment resulting in the loss of civil, professional or political rights.ā
According to the article, the bill also would strip citizenship of those found to have āconnections with foreign countriesā.
Seems like just pandering to their baseā¦
I hope they just meant foreign governments as opposed to all of us 
Iām hoping itās all of us. The crazier Chega presents themself, the better.
True, and now as the opposition they could force the government to make a choice between this or siding with PS and potentially looking weak on a key issue in the electionā¦
They can argue that. But thatās not the point. Those arenāt my monkeys and thatās not my circus. The point is that GV might as well be called a āspecial residence permitā because it is in fact special with unique features and benefits. You might have missed the entire point of the argument.