Did AIMA or someone actually define when the application date is? Is it when you show up to your local embassy to apply for your initial visa? Or is it when you receive that initial visa? Or is it when you apply in AIMA with biometrics? It would have to be consistent for everyone, not just GV, so my guess would be when you submit the app at your local consulate/embassy?
1 Like
I think we need some of the PT lawyers to interpret this because the way I read it, all the talk of at “application” implies at time of citizenship application, ergo, if you applied between the time the law was drafted and now, you’re grandfathered. It might not be talking about visas.
2 Likes
But I mean, today’s law is struck down, which means the previously amended law in 2024 stands. Ergo, the “application date” ambiguity still remains from that 2024 amendment. Surely someone has figured this out after 2 years from one of those fancy law firms in PT? Anyone know about this?
The rule is not actually implemented, it was not included in any regulation and the gov’t doesn’t honor it. It is yet to be seen whether someone could qualify for citizenship by applying or potentially suing the gov’t we do not have any anecdotes as of now.
So basically we still don’t know might not for months. This shit never ends
3 Likes
I wonder how quick you could get a court date, I guess you would have to be rejected first before going to court. Which you should be rejected pretty quick if you only submit like a 2 or 3 year residence report from AIMA to the Civil Registry Office. Surely they would reject it or flat out refuse it on the spot, which would be grounds for suing them? Not saying it would be cheap or quick, but might quicker than waiting 2 more years.
Here’s the full judgement if anyone wants to dig into it:
https://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/acordaos/20251133.html
3 Likes
Edit: Sorry, I was quickly reading through it, and this was text from the referral to the TC, not the opinion of the TC. Couldn’t figure out how to strike-through text, so deleted it.
Though, looks like 5.6 in the opinion is that “you didn’t point to the right place for us to opine on the constitutionality of the lack of a transition regime, but it probably is unconstitutional.”
That said, it should be noted that the invoked "absence of minimum transitional regime " constitutes the basis of the vice of unconstitutionality pointed out, but not the object of this judgment of constitutionality.
Also, a huge belated thank you to folks involved in submitting the amicus curiae brief.
7 Likes
A contagem de tempo may be the fastest way to court
If true that would be great since it implies if the law is rewritten and still lacks a transitional regime, PS has a second chance to send it to court and tell them to look in the right place this time! 
The more I look at the full judgement, the more I think Claude’s interpretation is correct. I’ve tried running it through ChatGPT 5.2 Pro a few times as well and it seems consistently agree that there’s nothing about the extension of the citizenship timeline or no longer counting the time waiting for the residence card that got struck down by the court.
Either way, LLMs can be wrong, so let’s see what the actual lawyers say.
4 Likes
I’ve now had time to read through it in Portuguese and sections D.5. and D.6. seem the nail in the coffin, explicitly stating there’s no unconstitutionality around repealing the time counting law nor having no transition regime. It seems to say people have no expectations of protection and that the law can be retroactively changed to 10 years from first card.
2 Likes
100%. I’d caution using LLMs to draw too many conclusions right now. I’m not a Portuguese lawyer, but I am trained in law and read Portuguese reasonably well. I asked ChatGPT 5.2 Pro a specific question about transition clauses in light of today’s ruling, and it very confidently misinterpreted a key passage of the CT judgment to reach the wrong conclusion.
When I pointed out the problem, it quickly changed course: “You caught a real error, and you were right to push on it”
3 Likes
Yeah, contrary to the first media reports that came out, reading the full judgement is pretty depressing 
I think at this point the only hope remaining is that with Chega’s most important requirements being struck down as unconstitutional, PSD will need to turn to PS to get the votes to pass a slightly more moderate version of the law. And if that happens PS will hopefully still fight for some sort of (graduated) transition scheme.
4 Likes
Unfortunately that’s also my first impression. It seems the initial TC pushback is quite narrowly focused on issues that are not immediately relevant to ARI holders. But at minimum, it does now kick the can down the road so gives another chance for the legislation to be reshaped through political negotiation. And I would point out that it does quote Miranda’s opinion verbatim in parts, which was favorable to issues important to this community, so that is clearly guiding their views.
1 Like
I wonder if they will do the rug pull sections separately in January then and leave the criminal bits out etc.
I’m pretty sure the next version of ChatGPT will be an expert in Portuguese law—after all the Portugal-law info we’ve fed it these past few weeks. 
4 Likes
I read the court’s decision in translation. Points D5 and D6 are a complete failure, according to our expectations. First, get a residence permit, and only then calculate the time until citizenship.
I’ve been waiting for a residence permit since October 2021. A year has passed since the biometrics. This is endless nonsense.
4 Likes
So basically the media was either “The GV is still a 5 year path to citizenship! Give us your money!” or “Court SLAMS Chega’s law! Suck it Chega” for left wing audiences or “Court SLAMS Chega’s law! The judges are biased and we must amend the constitution” for right wing audiences.
I think it is time to revisit that playlist. 
2 Likes