Or, if each firm could accommodate their own clients…I am with NSM for example.
500 is also the number I was thinking I’d be in for.
1 Like
The firm I’ve been talking with is Liberty Legal, by the way. I’ve asked about the other 2 firms and will report back when I have the info.
1 Like
I think there is a need to be very careful before doing something like this.
I understand the desire to “do something”. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Before I would support anything like this, I would want to see
- what it is that is being presented in the first place, in detail
- how those arguments fit into the broader framework of other decisions by the constitutional court and whether they have any real chance for success
- any precedent for the idea that third parties making submissions to the CC is allowed and viewed positively - just because Friends-of-the-Court works in the US doesn’t mean it works elsewhere!
(Personally, I don’t think I do support this. I think it is going to play out however it plays out, and any efforts on our part are going to either prove little or end up counterproductive. However I expect I am in the minority at best.)
2 Likes
Other firms are Fieldfisher and Ana Bruno (the other one on the webinar)
lol at giving lawyers in PT more money. sup lawsuits that went nowhere.
2 Likes
I think we should run an urgent poll here to see if we can get enough subscribers to justify the cost per person. I am not feeling particularly keen to depart with €5k for a letter to the court, especially knowing I can write one myself for free.
I, too, am uncomfortable advocating to the courts.
Instead, I think we should be prepared to advocate for ourselves should some aspects of this law be found unconstitutional.
For example, the TC may find that retroactively moving the start date is unconstitutional but uphold the extension from 5 years to 10.
If this is the case, I would like to see the start date used to calculate eligibility for the permanent residence move to be the application date (and not the date of issue of the first residency card). That way, yes, we have to wait 5 more years, but at least there’s a clear mechanism to maintain residency. Otherwise, there’s a mess of questions about holding the investment, dependents becoming eligible much later than the main applicant (and maybe not even be dependents anymore), what to do in the gap between the time you’ve invested for 5 years and are eligible to apply for a PR, etc.
Maybe there’s no chance in hell that could happen, but shouldn’t we be preparing for this sort of thing and proposing a solution rather than just complaining about it after the fact?
1 Like
I’d also be down for 500€. anyone with a Wise/Revolut/modern EU bank could do an instant IBAN transfer
I also strongly agree that should the law pass, the next best thing would be to advocate to PSD, which historically has been in favor of the GV in my understanding, to make the Permanent Residency happen 5 years after application/holding the investment. They don’t give two shits about fairness obviously, but we could argue they should do it to keep the GV attractive. But i suppose that’s not the pressing matter at the moment and we should probably wait on that topic, just excited to find someone that’s had the same thought:)
- I’m willing to chip in 500€ towards this if we can get 20 people
- Not willing to put in yet more money, but I support you guys!
- I think this is a bad idea that will harm our common cause
0
voters
I’d welcome any comments from @madalenamonteiro whether this is a realistic idea, and whether it has any prospect of influencing the TC ruling in our favour?
This is who I have been talking to. If she’s on here she can speak for herself, but in the meantime, yes, she thinks this is a good idea and has a prospect of influencing the TC (favorably).
2 Likes
The TC may not be the problem as it is highly likely it will find both Decrees rejectable.
Recent press repots have indicated that the AD (PSD + CSD) and Chega are considered to override the TC ruling as it has the 157 vote super majority. This strategy could literally ignore the TC ruling based on “policy needs”.
That will be the least favorable outcome for ARI investors.
Do you have any link to such reports?
I do not think they would want to ‘override’ it and thus cause long-term political damage to themselves, especially the PSD.
As we already know they chose not to override the Foreigners Law in the same situation just a few months ago.
That article says that they could, which we already knew. There’s no indication that they would.
8 Likes
They really should be doing without charge as a business development expense. This isn’t just a rant, they make a lot of money from this industry and they stand to lose a lot when people pull out.
8 Likes
I’d love to hear from a lawyer on this because I dove into this topic a while ago and Article 288 of the Constitution carves out a bunch of entrenched/unamendable Provisions that cannot be overridden - and these include a set of core fundamental rights that, as I understand it, support many/most of the 8 PS issues, like reasonable expectations and non-retroactivity. So 2/3 of the legislature can’t do anything about a ruling against them.
4 Likes
That makes a lot of sense. If the TC’s ruling spells out Article 288 violations, the override will be invalid.
The AD may be hoping that the TC judges would not directly put the Artilce 288 violations in the rulings. Then it is possible that the AD and Chega can force an override quickly and ask the President to approve the bill.
Apparently it is possible to have the “Fiscalização Sucessiva” as the subsequent review by the TC to challenge the bill even after the bill has been enacted. That will be really terrible…
1 Like