Looks we are “safe” for a while longer…
no, as of now there is no new law. The entire thing is dead so the old rules of 5 years starting from date of application remain in effect.
This same thing happened with the foreigners’ law last summer and what happened is they revised it and passed it in significantly watered down form.
We’ll find out how much of a priority this is in January when the legislature is back in session. They have 3 (realistic) options - revise the law to eliminate what TC found unconstitutional, forget about it entirely, amend the constitution so that it’s no longer unconstitutional. They also have the option of passing it unchanged with 2/3 majority but it would almost certainly wind up back with the TC for review via a different mechanism and we’d wind up right back where we are now.
1 Like
I,m not sure. According to the article you just posted:
The majority vote by which they were approved, exceeding two-thirds of the deputies, allows for their eventual confirmation, even in light of the unconstitutionalities declared by the Constitutional Court, in accordance with the Constitution.
On the other hand, others suggest it will return to Parliament to be re-written, potentially being watered down to be more in line with PS preferences.
These two positions seem contradictory. I’m dying to hear from the lawyers as to what’s what exactly.
That’s not necessarily 100% correct as per the article above:
A maioria com que foram aprovados, superior a dois terços dos deputados, permite a sua eventual confirmação, mesmo perante as inconstitucionalidades declaradas pelo TC, nos termos da Constituição.
The majority that approved [the law], greater than two-thirds of deputies, allows its eventual passage even despite the unconstitutionalities identified by TC as permitted by the terms of the Constitution.
Let’s hope this wouldn’t happen.
Technically the president’s veto (which is now mandatory) can be overruled, but this hasn’t ever been done on a constitutional issue and seems very unlikely.
1 Like
This means the parliament technically can put the law in effect and have it published without president’s signature. But this is a poor strategy that will not be followed because many of the articles were found unconstitutional and will not have effect. This is just reporting practice by journalists and media not a realistic expectation.
3 Likes
Yes, I just posted that. You are correct, but it is unclear whether this option would be actually utilised.
Ah understood. I hope this is indeed the case.
Yes, they can push it through, but the TC has other mechanisms by which they can review laws. The ombudsman, president or 10% of the legislature can petition for an abstract review and the TC has binding authority to declare it unconstitutional and remove it from the books.
If they ram it through, the law almost certainly either gets overturned on abstract review or overturned in a specific ruling after there’s a flood of lawsuits challenging it.
2 Likes
Nice way to stall everyone a few months so that they can collect fees early next year.
Seems that it would not, based on @lifedreamer explanation above.
I doubt anyone’s been thinking about GV fees.
I doubt anyone’s been thinking about GV fees.
Thank you for clarification. I truly hope you are right on this one!
I will be interested to see what the human lawyers say. I asked Claude to chew on the full 200+ page ruling however and it concluded pretty emphatically that we’re hosed.
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/fe5b2357-3da6-45cd-a311-baa001e8615b
2 Likes
Here it is:
Portuguese version
Tribunal chumba várias normas da lei da nacionalidade e alteração do Código Penal
O Tribunal Constitucional chumbou quatro normas da lei da nacionalidade e também considerou inconstitucional a norma acessória inscrita no Código Penal que impunha a perda de nacionalidade para quem tenha sido condenado em tribunal, indo de encontro às preocupações de vários constitucionalistas sobre o diploma. Uma das normas rejeitadas pelo tribunal é o artigo que faria voltar ao início todos os pedidos de nacionalidade pendentes à altura da publicação da lei. Os juízes consideraram que esse artigo violaria o princípio da confiança e das expectativas.
A decisão do TC surge depois de o Partido Socialista ter feito um pedido de fiscalização preventiva, aproveitando uma prerrogativa constitucional que permite que um quinto do Parlamento (46 em 230 deputados) possa fazer pedidos de fiscalização quando estão em causa mudanças nas leis orgânicas.
Sobre o requisito que impede cidadãos que foram condenados a penas de prisão efetivas iguais ou superiores a dois anos a obterem nacionalidade, os juízes consideraram que a norma cria uma “restrição desproporcional de acesso à cidadania” e existe uma “violação da norma constitucional que estitui que nenhuma pena envolve como efeito necessário a perda de quaisquer direitos civis, profissionais e políticos”. “Essa norma impede a possibilidade de aferir em que medida uma tal condenação põe em causa o específico vínculo de integração na comunidade portuguesa”, leu o presidente José João Abrantes, que deu conta da violação de pelo menos três artigos da Constituição.
Quanto ao ponto no diploma que retira a nacionalidade em situações onde esta tenha sido obtida com recurso a documentos falsos, o Tribunal foi unânime em avaliar que o projeto não oferece “qualquer critério de distinção entre as situações de obtenção por fraude em que já opera a consolidação da nacionalidade, e de fraude manifesta em que consolidação deixa de operar”, ocorrendo uma “violação do princípio de determinabilidade da reserva absoluta da lei parlamentar”.
Nas alterações à Lei da Nacionalidade, os juízes foram ainda unânimes em reprovar a inexistência de um regime transitório, já que a nova lei considera que a contagem do tempo de residência legal para efeitos de obtenção da nacionalidade começa quando o pedido é deferido pela Administração Pública, e não quando o pedido é feito pelo cidadão (caso esse pedido seja deferido, dependendo do preenchimento dos requisitos previstos). “O Tribunal Constitucional concluiu ocorrer violação do princípio da proteção da confiança, ínsito no princípio do Estado de Direito, consagrado no artigo 2 da Constituição, por afrontar as legítimas expectativas dos destinatários com procedimentos pendentes na aplicabilidade do regime existente na data da apresentação do pedido”, afirma o comunicado do TC.
A última das normas declaradas inconstitucionais, mas com apenas um juiz a opor-se à declaração (o vice-presidente do órgão, João Carlos Loureiro), foi a criação de um fundamento de oposição à aquisição da nacionalidade - uma espécie de requisito negativo -, no qual é considerado que pode ser recusada a nacionalidade a cidadãos que demonstrem “comportamentos que, de forma concludente e ostensiva, rejeitam a adesão à comunidade nacional, suas instituições representativas e símbolos nacionais”.
Ora, os juízes concordaram em larga medida com as preocupações enunciadas pelo PS na discussão na especialidade, ao decidirem que há uma violação do princípio da determinabilidade e da reserva absoluta da lei parlamentar, porque a “inexistência de qualquer indicação sobre a tipologia ou padrão de comportamentos, que possam ser suscetíveis de preencher aquele conceito, impossibilita que os cidadãos possam antecipar um mínimo de segurança quais os tipos de ações cuja prática pode ser motivo bastante para que contra si seja intentado uma ação de oposição à aquisição da nacionalidade portuguesa”.
Perda de nacionalidade na maioria dos crimes declarada “inapta” e “arbitrária”
No acórdão do juíz João Carlos Loureiro, vice-presidente do TC, os problemas começam logo na primeira alínea da proposta de lei do Governo, por aplicar uma pena acessória “apenas respetivamente aos cidadãos não-originários e que tenham praticado ilícito penal nos 10 anos posteriores à aquisição da nacionalidade portuguesa”. Isto, no entender dos juízes, viola “o princípio da igualdade consagrado no artigo 13 da Constituição, por não existir fundamento material bastante para a diferenciação de tratamento, operada em função do modo de obtenção da cidadania, aquisição da nacionalidade em confronto com a atribuição da nacionalidade, bem como em função do período transcorrido deste momento em que a aquisição da nacionalidade se concretizou, há menos ou há mais de dez anos”.
Quanto aos vários crimes elencados na lei, em praticamente todas as alíneas, o Tribunal Constitucional entendeu que ilícitos como crimes contra a vida, contra a integridade física, tráfico de armas e de drogas, entre outros, não permitem “concluir pela, ou sequer indicar, a forte desestabilização ou quebra da relação de pertença que confere materialidade ao vínculo jurídico que une um indivíduo ao Estado”. Portanto, aplicar a pena acessória nestes casos “configura respetivamente uma medida inapta ou inidónea, e arbitrária porque excessiva, em violação dos princípios da proporcionalidade e da necessidade penal”.
Os juízes não consideram inconstitucionais as menções a crimes de terrorismo ou contra o Estado, mas “o legislador foi para lá do estritamente necessário” e o restante corpo do projeto foi chumbado, pelo que estas partes acabaram por ficar inválidas.
Agora, a bola passa para o Presidente da República. Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa disse em novembro que ia esperar para ver o que diziam os juízes antes de “ponderar politicamente a lei”, mas também disse que, como é de regra, vetaria a lei caso o TC julgasse pela inconstitucionalidade da lei.
TIAGO MIRANDA
A pena acessória de perda de nacionalidade - que o Chega deixou passar na especialidade depois de afirmar que a pena automática era uma “linha vermelha” para o partido - foi apresentada pelos partidos que apoiam o Governo como um aditamento ao Código Penal, e não como parte da própria lei da nacionalidade. Assim, tinha ficado aberta a possibilidade de o Tribunal Constitucional aprovar algumas das principais alterações à lei, mesmo chumbando apenas a questão da perda de nacionalidade.
Os três maiores partidos falharam todos os prazos para entregar nomes para o tribunal e adiaram as nomeações para o TC três vezes, que só voltará a ficar completo depois das eleições presidenciais, segundo avançou o Público na semana passada. No último ano, dois juízes saíram no final do mandato sem serem substituídos (Gonçalo Almeida Ribeiro e Teles Pereira, ambos escolhidos pelo PSD) e a juíza Joana Fernandes Costa (indicada pelo PS) continua no tribunal, apesar do mandato já ter terminado.
[Notícia atualizada às 17h57]
Translated to English
Court rejects several provisions of the nationality law and amendment to the Penal Code
The Constitutional Court rejected four provisions of the nationality law and also considered unconstitutional the ancillary provision in the Penal Code that imposed the loss of nationality on anyone convicted in court, addressing the concerns of several constitutionalists about the law. One of the provisions rejected by the court is the article that would reset all pending nationality applications at the time of publication of the law. The judges considered that this article would violate the principle of trust and expectations.
The Constitutional Court’s decision comes after the Socialist Party made a request for preventive review, taking advantage of a constitutional prerogative that allows one-fifth of Parliament (46 out of 230 deputies) to make requests for review when changes to organic laws are at stake.
Regarding the requirement that prevents citizens who have been sentenced to effective prison terms of two years or more from obtaining nationality, the judges considered that the rule creates a “disproportionate restriction on access to citizenship” and that there is a “violation of the constitutional rule that no penalty necessarily involves the loss of any civil, professional, or political rights.” “This rule prevents the possibility of assessing the extent to which such a conviction jeopardizes the specific bond of integration into the Portuguese community,” read President José João Abrantes, who noted the violation of at least three articles of the Constitution.
As for the point in the bill that withdraws nationality in situations where it has been obtained using false documents, the Court was unanimous in assessing that the bill does not offer “any criteria for distinguishing between situations of obtaining nationality through fraud in which the consolidation of nationality already operates, and manifest fraud in which consolidation ceases to operate,” resulting in a “violation of the principle of determinability of the absolute reserve of parliamentary law.”
In the amendments to the Nationality Law, the judges were also unanimous in disapproving the lack of a transitional regime, since the new law considers that the counting of legal residence time for the purposes of obtaining nationality begins when the application is approved by the Public Administration, and not when the application is made by the citizen (if that application is approved, depending on the fulfillment of the requirements provided for). “The Constitutional Court concluded that there was a violation of the principle of protection of trust, inherent in the principle of the rule of law, enshrined in Article 2 of the Constitution, as it affronted the legitimate expectations of the recipients with pending procedures in the applicability of the regime existing on the date of submission of the application,” states the TC communiqué.
The last of the rules declared unconstitutional, but with only one judge opposing the declaration (the vice-president of the body, João Carlos Loureiro), was the creation of a basis for opposition to the acquisition of nationality - a kind of negative requirement - in which it is considered that nationality may be refused to citizens who demonstrate “behavior that conclusively and ostensibly rejects adherence to the national community, its representative institutions, and national symbols.”
The judges largely agreed with the concerns expressed by the PS in the detailed discussion, deciding that there is a violation of the principle of determinability and the absolute reserve of parliamentary law, because the “absence of any indication of the type or pattern of behavior that could be considered to fulfill that concept makes it impossible for citizens to anticipate with any degree of certainty the types of actions that could be grounds for bringing an action against them to oppose the acquisition of Portuguese nationality.”
Loss of nationality for most crimes declared “inappropriate” and “arbitrary”
In the ruling by Judge João Carlos Loureiro, vice-president of the Constitutional Court, the problems begin in the first paragraph of the government’s bill, as it applies an additional penalty “only to non-native citizens who have committed a criminal offense in the 10 years following the acquisition of Portuguese nationality.” This, in the opinion of the judges, violates “the principle of equality enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution, as there is no sufficient material basis for the differentiation in treatment, based on the manner of obtaining citizenship, acquisition of nationality as opposed to attribution of nationality, as well as on the period elapsed since the moment when nationality was acquired, less than or more than ten years ago.”
As for the various crimes listed in the law, in practically all paragraphs, the Constitutional Court understood that crimes such as crimes against life, against physical integrity, arms and drug trafficking, among others, do not allow “concluding or even indicating the strong destabilization or breakdown of the relationship of belonging that gives materiality to the legal bond that unites an individual to the State.” Therefore, applying the additional penalty in these cases “constitutes a measure that is respectively inappropriate or unsuitable, and arbitrary because it is excessive, in violation of the principles of proportionality and criminal necessity.”
The judges do not consider references to crimes of terrorism or against the State to be unconstitutional, but “the legislator went beyond what was strictly necessary” and the rest of the bill was rejected, so these parts ended up being invalid.
Now, the ball is in the President’s court. Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa said in November that he would wait to see what the judges said before “politically considering the law,” but he also said that, as a rule, he would veto the law if the Constitutional Court ruled it unconstitutional.
Court rejects several provisions of the nationality law and amendment to the Penal Code
TIAGO MIRANDA
The additional penalty of loss of nationality - which Chega let pass after stating that the automatic penalty was a “red line” for the party - was presented by the parties supporting the government as an addition to the Penal Code, and not as part of the nationality law itself. This left open the possibility that the Constitutional Court would approve some of the main amendments to the law, even if it rejected the issue of loss of nationality.
The three largest parties all missed the deadlines for submitting names to the court and postponed the appointments to the Constitutional Court three times, which will only be complete again after the presidential elections, according to Público last week. In the last year, two judges left at the end of their term without being replaced (Gonçalo Almeida Ribeiro and Teles Pereira, both chosen by the PSD) and Judge Joana Fernandes Costa (appointed by the PS) remains on the court, despite her term having already ended.
[News updated at 5:57 p.m.]
This section is what seems immediately applicable to most ARI investors and reassuring longterm. It seems that the TC objects to any change in timeline for anyone who is past the point of residency application. Ergo, expect the clock starting at application to remain the rule and expect the 5 year timeline to apply to anyone who applied before any new law is passed.
The fair, common sense approach was always to make any changes in timeline prospective, only applying to new applicants, it’s good to see the TC agreeing.
4 Likes
This is pretty different than all the other reporting I’m seeing. Hmm.
1 Like
It could be wrong - it’s an LLM. Big disclaimer. Hence the need for human lawyers to read it.
2 Likes
The counting from application is protected and must be grandfathered but not the 5 years timeline. The requirements can change at anytime but they cannot be retroactively applied in a manner that the applicant couldn’t know about or anticipate beforehand. The TC is not taking sides here they are merely there to ensure the rules are fair to everyone and nothing more.
This is good in case they place emphasis on physical residence in the future it will not be applied retroactively in that case according to this principle because you couldn’t go back in time to act differently.. very fair and reasonable in my opinion.
And it’s looking more likely now 10 years is off the table.