The Portuguese Government has recently proposed changes to the Nationality Law. Among the potential changes is an increase in the residence period required for citizenship from five years to ten years, counted from the date the residence permit is issued.
It is important to emphasize that this is only an early-stage proposal. The draft is currently under parliamentary review, with committee discussions continuing into October, when the Government will send the final draft to Parliament for final discussion and approval. Only after approval by majority, will the same be sent to the President of the Republic who will then Ratify the Law and order its publication in the Official Journal or Exercise veto and send the proposal back to Parliament to be corrected or even Request the intervention of the Constitutional Court if he finds that there are constitutional rights and/or principles being violated.
Until any changes are formally approved and rectified, the current rules remain fully in force.
Who Would Be Protected?
Any future changes to the Nationality Law will apply universally, except to those who have already submitted their citizenship applications. Pending citizenship applications will continue to be assessed under the law in effect at the time of submission, safeguarding applicants against retroactive changes.
It is important to note that being a current resident or holding a Golden Visa does not automatically protect investors under the current five-year path to citizenship. Only applicants who have formally applied for nationality before the new law enters into force are expected to be “grandfathered” under the existing rules. Retroactivity is generally prohibited, but the law protects only citizenship cases which are formally submitted.
The Relationship Between Golden Visa, Citizenship, and Permanent Residence
The Golden Visa program provides the right to reside in Portugal; it does not grant citizenship or permanent residence automatically.
Citizenship eligibility is determined exclusively by the Portuguese Nationality Law, which currently requires five years of legal residence and proof of Portuguese language knowledge.
All Permanent Residence Permits require proof of Portuguese language knowledge.
Unless additional transition rules are adopted, ongoing citizenship applications are the only ones protected in case of changes in the Nationality Law.
As per the known draft of the Foreigners Law, Golden Visa holders remain fully protected under their residence permits against any program changes.
Permanent Residency as a Stable Alternative
Even if the path to citizenship is extended, Golden Visa holders and their families may secure Permanent Residence (PR). The PR for Investment Activity offers several advantages:
No limit on absences from Portugal — holders do not need to comply with the standard 24-month consecutive, or 30-month interpolated absence rules (per 36 months).
Valid for five years, with unlimited renewal; permanent residence cards must be updated every five years or when personal details change.
Proof of Portuguese language knowledge is required.
Fee structure:
First issuance: €8,463.40
Renewal: €4,326.30
Permanent residence provides long-term stability even if citizenship timelines change. It also allows dependents to gain independence from the main investor and ensures legal residence regardless of future legislative changes in the Foreigners Law. Importantly, the investment does not need to be maintained until citizenship is granted; the PR is tied to residency and investment rules, not the nationality application.
Legal and Constitutional Considerations
Investors’ expectation of applying for citizenship after five years is not a legally guaranteed right; it cannot be enforced in court merely based on a previous promise or standard practice.
Unlike the Foreigners Law, there is no indication that the Nationality Law will include carve-outs for Golden Visa investors.
Final Thoughts
The legislative process is ongoing, and the final Foreigners Law and Nationality Law may differ from the current drafts. For now, investors can be reassured that:
The Golden Visa remains a secure and valuable option for obtaining residency in Portugal.
Citizenship is currently available after five years, with language requirements, for those who have ongoing citizenship cases.
Permanent Residence offers a stable, long-term alternative, with unlimited renewals, no absence limits, and protection of dependents, even if citizenship timelines are extended.
If you have additional questions for me on this topic, please reach out directly.
Good summary but I’d just highlight, as you point out, this is the same info we had a couple of months ago. We haven’t yet seen the new draft come out of committee discussions so the situation might be very different in a couple of weeks.
I remain unconvinced that the advertised promise of access to the naturalization pathway for ARI investors, published successively on the official SEF and AIMA web sites, failed to create a legitimate expectation that could be pursued in a court case. As an investor, I considered that to be a designated, key feature of the program, which was decisive in catalyzing my investment.
I did not invest much of my life savings and pay huge fees, and deal with arduous bureaucratic obstacles, for the right to spend a few weeks a year in Portugal. I already had that right, coming from a visa-exempt country. Temporary residency was a means to an end, not the end in itself.
I agree with Mark Rogan. This analysis does not cite any specific law or court case. We can only assume it relies on the court’s opinion in the Sephardic case. That was not an analogous situation. I can recite many reasons why Sephardic jews are not in an analogous situation to ARI investors, but I won’t do that here.
Otherwise, why doesn’t Portugal just promise anyone who donates 1.000.000 euros to a social housing fund can apply for citizenship after 1 year and change the law accordingly. And then after Portugal gets millions of euros in investments it can change the law back to 10 years. Sorry, nothing you can do! The nationality law is the nationality law.
Suffice to say, I will be pursuing my legal rights in court if necessary.
That’s a great analogy about the 1,000,000 investment, albeit hypothetical. But that’s exactly what happened to HSMP applicants in the UK and they managed to win the case against the UK government. Back then the government wanted to top up ‘only’ one year for the HSMP applicants, not 5-7+ like here, and also HSMP people were not really investors. But still they managed to win in the court somehow. For ARI applicants the case is much much stronger:
Huge upfront investments made (unlike HSMP)
Exact path to Citizenship advertised by SEF/AIMA
Huge admin delays of 4+ years since initial application
Btw, the UK is also about to add +5 years for HSMP applicants. As far as I understand, unlike in 2006, there’s no way to take it to court if it becomes an act of parliament this time. Seems like the new trend is punishing people who played by the book, invested their money, skills, and time.
I am not closely tracking the UK developments in this area, but I doubt there are any HSMP applicants left in the wild who have not yet applied/received their citizenship.
So whatever +5 years the current UK government wants to add, is not going to be applicable (or comparable) to the past HSMP case, nor to the in-progress ARI applicants case in Portugal.
I am eligible to apply for citizenship from end of October onwards, under the current regime. I have started gathering documents, and sitting with my fingers crossed.
I’ve spoken to lawyers who echo this line of reasoning - that there was a reasonable expectation established and they predicted that people who had already applied would probably be grandfathered or there would be a lot of blowback. For better or worse, I’ve had other lawyers say that timeline to citizenship, language requirements, etc are the prerogative of the legislature and that those are the least problematic parts of the legislation.
I suspect they’re both right and we’ll just have to wait and see how aggressive the legislature wants to be what the court’s opinion is if they’re asked to weigh in.
Maybe I am misinterpreting all this, but it seems that nobody, including the Father of the Constitution, is saying that expanding the time period from 5 years to 10 years is unconstitutional. I suspect that is the issue that has the most negative impact to the greatest number of GV people (especially people in closed end funds which fixed investment periods). I have no doubt there are a class of people on the verge of meeting the 5 year period who would be harmed, but I am guessing the greatest harm is to the group of people whose legitimate expectation of the time period just doubled. So while I agree a non-binding interpretation by a respected lawyer is nonetheless a good development, I think we have big problems ahead for most GV holders.
it seems that nobody, including the Father of the Constitution, is saying that expanding the time period from 5 years to 10 years is unconstitutional
Your claim is demonstrably false. The analysis specifically states that it “should be considered unconstitutional”. See pages 37-38 and 68-69; here is a key passage:
It also clearly states and explains that starting the clock at the time of card issuance, rather than application, violates the principle of equality and is unconstitutional.
the change in timeline in and of itself doesn’t seem to be a problem, it’s more about the details of implementation. The argument appears to be that people who are at engaged in the process of acquiring permanent residency and ultimately naturalization have a reasonable expectation regarding the timeline. The most reasonable fix would be to change the naturalization timeline for future applicants only, essentially meaning everyone who has applied for ARI would be grandfathered into the current laws.
I agree. To clarify my prior post, Jorge Miranda’s point is that applying it to current legal residents, including ARI investors, violates the principle of legitimate expectations, and in the absence of a protective transitional regime, “deva ser considerada inconstitucional.” I don’t know of any claim that it would be unconstitutional if only applied to new residents going forward.
Yes, exactly. In my case, the difference in waiting time before I can apply for citizenship is 8.5 years. The 5 additional years plus the 3.5 years I spent waiting for a process to be completed which by law was supposed to take 90 days. It’s a real gut punch. I hope the Portuguese government does the right thing.
Found this in a different thread. It seems like according to this, those still waiting for first card will not be protected? That would be bad news and we should do something to try to influence it.
