I had MacWhisper transcribe and translate, this is what it spit out:
Speaker 2 • 00:26
In its plenary session on December 15, the Constitutional Court approved the Preventive Prohibition of Constitutionality Prohibition, presented on November 19 by 50 deputies to the Assembly of the Republic, in the terms of Article 278, Numbers 4 and 6 of the Constitution and incidents under constant rules of the 17/17 Assembly Decree that changes the Nationality Law and the 18/17 Assembly Decree that changes the Criminal Code, creating the penalty of loss of nationality. I will now pass the floor, first of all, to the Minister of Justice. to the Attorney-General, Dora Lucas Neto, and then to the Vice-President, João Carlos Loureiro. Please, Madam Attorney-General.Speaker 3 • 01:40
Thank you very much, Mr. President. Good afternoon to everyone. The Constitutional Court, in the context of the request for preventive inspection of the Constitutionality, which was rejected under the norms of Decree 17-17 of the Constitution, the Assembly of the Republic, which aims to change the Law of Nationality, was unanimously pronounced for the unconstitutionality of the following norms: the norm extracted from line F of Article 6 of Law 37/81 of October 3, in the action taking place of the authorizations introduced by Article 2 of the decree, by violation of Articles 26/1, in conjunction with Articles 18/2 and 34/4, all of the Constitution. Of the Rule No. 3 of Article 12b of Law 37/81, of October 3, in the current of the changes introduced by Article 2 of the decree, by violation of Article 2, in conjunction with the F line of Article 1 of Article 164, both of the Constitution, and, still, of the rule extracted from Article 13 and 4 of Article 7 of the Decree by violation of Article 2 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court still pronounced, by majority, the unconstitutionality of the rule extracted from the second part of line A of Article 9 of Law 37/81 of October 3, in the current review of the changes introduced by Article 2 of the Decree, by violation of Article 2, in conjunction with the F-line of Article 1, Article 164, both of the Constitution. They voted for the unconstitutionality of the Madam Councilors and the Madam Councilors, Joana Fernandes Costa, Carlos. Madeiros de Carvalho, José Eduardo Figueiredo Dias, Mariana Canutilho, Rui Guerra da Fonseca, Maria Benedito Urbano, Dora Lucas Neto, António da Ascensão Ramos, Afonso Patrão e o Sr. Juiz Conselheiro Presidente José José de Moura. João Abrantes. The Vice-President, João Carlos Loureiro, was defeated. Finally, the Constitutional Court decided, by unanimity, and according to the other norms that integrated the request, not to pronounce itself for its inconstitutionality.Speaker 2 • 04:14
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I now pass the floor to Mr. Vice-President João Carlos Loureiro. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Good afternoon.Speaker 4 • 04:22
The Constitutional Court decided to pronounce, by the unconstitutionality of the norms of Article 69d, numbers 1, 2, the line A, 4, 5 and 6, edited by Article 2 of the Assembly’s Decree, number 1817, violating the principles of equality, proportionality and guilt, consecrated in Articles 1, 13, number 1 and 18, number 2, this in conjunction with Article 26, number 1, all of the Constitution. The deliberation was taken unanimously.Speaker 2 • 05:03
Thank you very much, Mr. Councillor. I will now read a statement on these deliberations, on these agreements of the Constitutional Court. As you have just heard, the Plenary of the Constitutional Court decided today to pronounce for the unconstitutionality of four constant norms of the Assembly Decree, The Constitutional Law of the Republic, number 17, bar 17, which alters the Portuguese Nationality Law in 7 preventive inspection of the Constitutionality. Relatively to 3 of these 4 norms, the Court pronounced itself by unanimity in the sense of its unconstitutionality. These are the following norms. First, the norm that the decree aims to introduce in article 6º, number 1, line F of the Nationality Law, which prevents, by automatic effect of the law, access to Portuguese citizenship by those who have been convicted of the crime of crime foreseen. in Portuguese legislation with a penalty equal or greater than two years of prison. Given this norm, to prevent the possibility of affording to what extent such a condemnation causes the specific link of integration in the Portuguese community, the Constitutional Court decided, in line with the previous, reiterated and uniform jurisprudence, to violate Articles 26/1 in conjunction with Articles 18/2 and 30/4 of the Constitution. They are therefore in question: a disproportionate restriction of the fundamental right to access and the violation of the Constitutional norm that states that no penalty involves, as necessary, the loss of any civil, professional or political rights. 2. The norm that the decree aims to introduce in Article 12b of the Law of the State of Nationality, which establishes that the consolidation of nationality does not operate, as for good faith holders, in situations of manifest fraud. The Constitutional Court decided that, by not offering any criterion of distinction between the situations of fraud, in which the consolidation of nationality already operates, of nationality and manifest fraud in which consolidation ceases to operate, a violation of the principle of determinability and absolute reserve of parliamentary law occurs, which is extracted from the conjugation of Article 2 with the line F of Article 164 of the 3. The norm of Articles 13 and 4 of the Decree, according to which the deferment of the attributes or acquisition of nationality, pending the date of the entry into force of the alterations to the Law of Nationality, depends on the fulfillment of the requirements provided for the date of the application of the request, and not, as it happens in the current regime in force, the date of the decision of the request. The Constitutional Court concluded that violation of the principle of protection of trust, in situ in the principle of the rule of law consecrated in Article 2 of the Constitution, by facing the legitimate expectations of the recipients with pending procedures in the applicability of the existing regime on the date of the presentation the request. Most of all, with a vote of the winner, the Tribunal also decided, in the sense of the unconstitutionality of the norm that the decree aims to introduce in Article 9, number 1, line A, second part of the National Law. that determines the possibility of cancellation of the National Register by verifying the behaviors that, in a conclusive and ostentatious way, reject the adhesion to the national community of its representative institutions and national symbols. The Constitutional Court decided that the absence of any indication of the typology or pattern of behaviors that may be susceptible to infringement of the national law, to understand that concept, it makes it impossible for citizens to anticipate, with a minimum of safety, what types of actions, whose practice can be a good reason for an action of opposition to the acquisition of Portuguese nationality, to be attempted against them. Thus, the principle of determinability and the absolute reserve of legality is violated, to the first agreement that was reported to the Attorney-General, Dora Lucas Neto. The Constitutional Court has yet to pronounce, in today’s session, on the preventive inspection request relating to the Decree of the Assembly of the Republic 18/17, which adds to the Criminal Code Article 69D, preventing the accessory penalty of loss of nationality. The Court considered that Article 1 of Article 69 and the respective Article A, when applying for the penalty of access to the loss of nationality to the non-originated citizens and who have practiced illegal penance in the ten years following the acquisition of nationality Portuguese, violate the principle of equality consecrated in Article 13 of the Constitution, for there not being enough material foundation for the differentiation of the operating treatment, in function of the way of obtaining citizenship, acquisition of nationality in confrontation with the attribution of nationality, as well as in function of the period that has been se concretizou a aquisição há menos ou há mais de 10 anos. No que respeita ao elenco de crimes do número 4 do artigo 69d, o Tribunal entendeu que, como por um lado, a condenação pela prática dos crimes previstos nas alíneas A, B, C, D, E, G, I e J não permite concluir pela ou sequer indicate the strong stabilization or break of the relationship of belonging that confirms the materiality of the legal link that unites an individual to the State, and on the other hand, the corresponding conduct violator does not present a clear connection with the content of the penitentiary of the loss of nationality, the application of this configures, respectively, an inappropriate or inappropriate and arbitrary measure, because excessive, in violation of the principles of proportionality and the penalty necessity, consecrated in Article 18, Number 2, in conjunction with Article 26, Number 1, both of the Constitution. The same cannot be said about the crimes provided for in the F and H lines. But as for these, the legislator went beyond what was strictly necessary, by abiding by the condemnation for his practice in prison, of duration equal or greater than four years, admitting the application of an accessory penalty that configures an intense restriction of a personal fundamental right, in cases in which the least severity of the crimes evidenced by the concrete sanctions applied does not justify, in violation of the principle of criminal necessity, consecrated in Article 18, Number 2, in conjunction with Article 26, Number 1, both of the Constitution. The Court also considered being in cause a modulated accessory penalty in a fixed way, without possibility of adequacy to the concrete case, namely in respect to the determination of its duration, between a minimum and maximum limit, according to all the applicable circumstances, of guilt, the need for prevention, among others, which translates into a violation by the numbers 1, 5 and 6 of Article 69d of the principles of guilt, equality and proportionality consecrated in Articles 1, 13, 18, 2, this in conjunction with Article 26, 1, all of the Constitution. Although the Article 69D, line A, does not violate the principle of criminal legality or any other constitutional parameter, the Court decided that, given the matrix nature of the number 1 of the same statute, the statement of its unconstitutionality cannot fail to be reflected in the remaining norms subject to the request, designated at the time of reference. The agreement was unanimously approved. Thank you very much for your attention. This session is closed. I inform you that the agreements will still be available on the website of the Constitutional Court. Good afternoon everyone. After this statement at the Constitutional Court regarding the National Law,
Sorry for the wall of text…