There seems to be pretty much universal agreement that applying a law retroactively like that is flagrantly unconstitutional and any such provision would be unlikely to survive.
I hope so. I have the documents all ready to submit, but there’s a nonzero chance I’ll get to the front of the line and have the door slammed in my face, in which case I’ll join you in court. I’ve certainly blasted the committee emails with requests for a grandfather clause.
@doughaas I suspect you’re right but I won’t relax until that’s confirmed.
1 Like
Just my 2 cents in the matter.
Before July 2018,the residency requirement was 6yrs for naturalization and they amended it in July 2018 to 5yrs and was put into force immediately.
Since it was immediately implemented and a lot of people were able to apply a year earlier. So I kind of expect the new changes to sadly be implemented immediately as well
They might try that, but there is a legal distinction between a change that adds 5 years to the requirement and a change that makes the requirement one year shorter. The latter is a beneficial change, the former is a restrictive change. Restrictive changes invoke different constitutional principles eg. ordinarily you can’t retroactively change a law to make things worse for people who acted in accordance with the law at the time, or at least it requires a higher bar of justification. Otherwise you could prosecute someone for an act committed in the past at a point when it wasn’t actually against the law.
12 Likes
No idea about Portuguese constitional principles, but in the US this is not correct. The prohibition on ex post facto laws only applies to criminal statutes. There isn’t a general “retroactive” prohibition. Tax rules change all the time, for example, pegged to the date the change was first floated; this is the same as the June 19 date being used. There is also the concept of vested rights, but that is a takings issue.
You’ve conflated retroactively criminalizing conduct (which also goes to intent) with changing the rules for something you aren’t yet entitled to.
Thank-you for your detailed reply. I really appreciate it. All this uncertainty over whether we will be grandfathered in or not is making me feel physically sick. I persuaded my husband to go the Golden Visa route in 2019 and even put my whole pension into buying a property in the hope that my children would have a better future with Portuguese Citizenship. They were early teens at the time so we did the whole thing on the basis of the 6 year time frame. Now I worry that the goalposts are changing and that my entire reason for doing this is going to be in vain. The stress this whole process has caused, the administrative delays in getting residency, the money spent, the sleepless nights… I pray that it will be ok in the end and that the grandfathering will prevail for those of us who put our faith in the process many years ago.
4 Likes
Good thing we’re not immigrating to the US then! You’re right the ex post facto rule in the US only covers criminal law, but we can’t just map that across to Portugal. I’ve been advised the Portuguese constitution has a broader framework that protects other areas too. Entertaining as it is to go down that rabbit hole, I’ve learned the hard way not to waste hours arguing legal theory on here. We’ll know a lot more once parliament and the constitutional court have had their say in the next few weeks.
1 Like
There is not much use for us comparing Portugal with some less beneficial/ less lawful jurisdictions like the US in your example. I am sure one can find tons of retroactive laws implemented in some 3rd/4th world countries. So I’d suggest looking instead for the examples from Portugal itself or comparable jurisdictions where retroactive laws were blocked or altered in the past. We could then use those precedents to inform/warn the Deputies before they vote on this one somewhere in September.
And if you are really keen to look up a Common Law precedent then please feel free to refer to the HSMP case in the UK, where the government’s decision to extend the time to citizenship from 4 to 5 years was overturned in the High Court. I posted links to this case before on this forum.
3 Likes
About minimum period of 5 yr for investment, there was no minimum requirement when the program started. When they added it, the lawyers treated it as worsening of the requirements, and per their words it meant that if you even want to exit GV program earlier, you still have to keep investment for 5 yrs. Not sure how it can be controlled however in case of real estate.
As I was in the program almost from the beginning, it sounds pretty bizarre for me how anybody treats it in his/her favor e.g. that 5 yr minimum requirement is a proof of the right to get anything after 5 yrs or as a sign that investment is just for 5 yrs.
While you renew ARI, even if 7 yrs passed you still need to keep the investment. It is a good news that AIMA decided that you don’t need to keep it after receiving GV PR. In was a grey area and my lawyers e.g. said 2 yrs ago that they recommend to keep investment also with GV PR.
2 Likes
It is not gray. It is 100% clear that without investment a main applicant (or dependents of main applicant will not be able to renew residency (PR and normal GV). However, aima might publish a new instruction about GV PR and possibilities to sell off the investment. The reason is that some investors invested in Funds which have a cycle of 6-8 years. So, the funds will terminate after finishing its cycle, and then what? Probably this issue has been addressed by lawyers to Aima and in 2-3 years from now it will be time that Aima must give further instruction. And if the fund terminates after its cycle of 6-8 years, it is quite absurb to force investors finding another Fund to park the money. But…let’s see how the circus show plays out!
Well, it was kind of gray because my lawyers told me that they do not see that requirement in written (to keep it after receiving PR) and also that they have not hear that anybody checked it afterwards, however they still recommended to keep it just in case. But it was the time when everybody expected to get citizenship after 5 yr + 2 yr of processing, so nobody planned to renew that PR. On the other hand, PR is not renewed, it is reissued after 5 yrs (means that it does not require approval). The only thing is that one can lose it if not fulfill presence requirements. So if reissue is not approved, but granted, where is the point to check investment especially if it is not written?
P.S. I did not go that way, neither 2 yrs nor 4 yrs ago, decided to choose GV renewal. Well I had to renew it twice, but 4 yrs of ARI was still cheaper than GV PR.
When it is not stated clearly on website of AIMA, then it is 100% NO. Even when AIMA publishes instruction to allow main applicant to sell the investment after obtaining GV PR without mentioning anything about dependents, it is a 100% NO to dependents i.e. if investment is sold, then GV PT will not be granted to dependents later on. Only when AIMA publishes on website with underline bullet point about GV PR, then it might be a YES.
It is 100% false. Let’s look at the table of charges from AIMA website. Link is here
It shows clearly: Concessão ou Renovação literally means Issue or Renew. It is indeed a renewal process!
I just read in Expresso.pt (link below) that Chega is now saying the citizenship law reforms will be “reevaluated” in October. It looks like they are first going to try to deal with the constitutional court’s rejection of the immigration laws when parliament return in a couple of weeks.
So people who are fan of political analysis, what do you think is going to be the likely outcome? Would we (GV applications) be banished to 15 years wait for naturalisation? Or any carve-out likely?
I can’t imagine a carve out without outcry from the left and not sure if the right and moderates really care enough about ARI to warrant taking the struggle with this opposition
Good for your chances, Jack. As I wrote to a friend last week, “there is a small chance that Portugal will pick the most awful direction within the next 1-2 months, but the most likely scenario is they continue dithering for 3-6 more months.”
Unfortunately this would leave us late-2021 applicants in limbo while still being potentially exposed to the worst-case scenario, but wouldn’t be surprising at this point.
2 Likes
This is the worst case scenario for us as well. September 2021 applicants, received first cards April 2024. We are waiting to see what the legislation looks like before we make any decision. BUT, if they prevaricate into the new year, then we will be under some time pressure to sell up and leave in the spring. A quick decision, no matter how awful it is, is much preferred to a significant delay.
Everyone has its own view to the deadlines for the law… I’ll be eligible to submit the citizenship application on January 5th, 2026. My children can do in February. So I really hope that such important thing as the change in the citizenship law will be delayed and delayed 
4 Likes
Well, if there is one thing Portuguese legislators are truly excellent at, it’s delays.
6 Likes
To Jack, from half the people on this forum once he submits his citizenship application next month after the inevitable legislative delay:
5 Likes
@Hippopotamousse I’m flattered by the proposal but I’m happily married and definitely not putting myself through any more family sponsorships 
2 Likes