Golden Visa Investors Challenge Portugal’s Citizenship Law at Constitutional Court

Foreign residents participating in Portugal’s Golden Visa program have filed a constitutional challenge against the country’s new citizenship amendments, arguing the government reneged on commitments made when it solicited their capital.

Golden Visa holders and applicants submitted the amicus curiae brief on December 3 to Portugal’s Constitutional Court, through Liberty Legal founder Madalena Monteiro. It arrives as the court reviews preventive constitutionality challenges to Decree 17/XVII, which extends Portugal’s citizenship timeline from five to 10 years for most applicants.

Monteiro had previously commissioned the 82-page constitutional opinion from Jorge Miranda, co-author of Portugal’s 1976 Constitution, that identified fundamental constitutional violations in the proposed amendments back in September.

Investors approached Monteiro after learning the Social Democratic Party submitted its response to the Constitutional Court.

“After learning that the PSD had submitted its response to the Constitutional Court, and in light of the recent statements made by government ministers, the Golden Visa investors asked me to prepare an amicus curiae through which they could present their specific circumstances and explain the impact that these legislative changes have had on them,” Monteiro explains.

Minister Admits Deliberate Processing Delays

The brief highlights a parliamentary admission by Portugal’s Minister of the Presidency that government agencies deliberately placed Golden Visa applications at the end of processing queues. During November budget debates, the minister told deputies that Autorização de Residência para Atividade de Investimento (ARI) cases were “left for the end” due to “social equity.”

According to the minister’s testimony, which the brief quotes extensively, authorities decided to “attend first to the poorest, the most vulnerable” before processing applications from “the richest.”

The brief argues that this admission challenges government claims that processing delays result from administrative capacity rather than political choice.

More than 20,000 investors expect appointments with Portugal’s Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum (AIMA) only in the first half of 2026, some having waited since 2021 for decisions that the law requires within 90 days.

Monteiro emphasizes the disconnect between governmental rhetoric and investor experience. Golden Visa investors “are not asking for preferential treatment and, of course, fully acknowledge that Parliament has the authority to define the rules governing Portuguese citizenship,” she notes. “They simply expect to be treated fairly and not be placed in a situation where new rules are applied retroactively to their cases.”

Monteiro points to recent ministerial statements that confirm what investors suspected. “However, in recent years, this has clearly not been the case, particularly in light of public statements from government ministers acknowledging that these investors were intentionally left behind.”

Two Constitutional Violations Identified

The investors identify two provisions as unconstitutional under Portugal’s State of Law principle in Article 2 of the Constitution.

First, Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of the decree contain no transitional regime protecting those already residing in Portugal or in the immigration pipeline. The brief characterizes this as violating segurança jurídica (legal certainty) and tutela da confiança (protection of trust), fundamental principles requiring gradual rather than abrupt legal changes affecting established expectations.

André Miranda, managing partner of Fieldfisher Portugal, frames the issue plainly. The brief “reflects very well how changing the citizenship conditions without transitional protection arrangements undermines legal certainty and violates the principle of trust that Portugal itself cultivated when promoting the Golden Visa program.”

Investors structured their lives around the five-year citizenship pathway that Portugal promoted through AIMA and the Agency for Investment and External Trade (AICEP). The brief documents that participants “committed their life savings,” relocated families, enrolled children in Portuguese schools, and learned the language following representations from Portuguese government agencies.

The brief identifies Article 5’s repeal of Article 15(4) of the Nationality Law as removing protections against administrative delays. Current law counts residency time from application submission, provided authorities eventually approve the permit, the document explains.

It argues that eliminating this provision means residency counting begins only when AIMA issues a decision, potentially adding two to four years to the timeline given current processing speeds.

The brief argues this creates arbitrary distinctions violating Article 13’s equality guarantee. Two foreign citizens meeting legal requirements who submit applications on the same day at the same hour could have completely different start dates for counting legal residence time, the document explains, purely because one file moved faster through the bureaucracy than another.

Fundamental Rights Framework Invoked

The brief frames access to Portuguese citizenship as a fundamental right under Article 26(1) of the Constitution, reading it through Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights per constitutional Article 16(2).

While acknowledging Portugal’s sovereignty over nationality rules, the investors argue that restrictions must satisfy proportionality tests and serve constitutionally legitimate objectives.

No empirical justification appears in the legislative record for why 10 years of residence demonstrates an effective connection to Portugal while five years does not, according to the brief.

What is the rational explanation to sustain that effective connection to Portugal is only achieved after ten years instead of the currently valid five-year period, the document asks.

Even if the court rejects the fundamental rights analysis, the brief maintains that constitutional duties under Articles 2, 13, 36, 67, and 68 regarding the State of Law, equality, and family protection bind the legislature when regulating nationality acquisition.

Amplifying Voices Excluded From Legislative Process

Miranda characterizes the submission as more than legal argumentation, saying this “amicus curiae brief is not just a petition with legal reasoning; it is also a megaphone for thousands whose lives are shaped by decisions they cannot directly influence.”

Miranda adds that the filing “transforms silent stakeholders into a collective voice, ensuring that the Portuguese Constitutional Courts will hear their perspectives and understand the broader impact of the ruling, which will be disclosed on 15 December.”

Monteiro describes her objective as documenting lived experience rather than abstract legal theory. “Our objective was to present to the Court the real situation experienced by Golden Visa investors, who have been overlooked for many years.”

Economic Contribution Detailed

The submission details how foreign investors restructured their lives around Portugal’s promoted residency-to-citizenship pathway.

Monteiro elaborates on the program’s economic impact. The Golden Visa program “has generated at least €9 billion in foreign direct investment for the Portuguese economy (according to the latest official data available, up to October 2023), not including government fees; nearly €7,000 per applicant for the issuance of residence permits; or the broader economic impact, such as job creation and other indirect contributions.”

The brief estimates that the actual investment figure could reach double the documented amount when including pending applications.

AICEP and AIMA “aggressively promoted this program” following the 2008-2011 financial crisis. The brief emphasizes that investors made planos de vida (life plans) relying on governmental assurances about naturalization timelines, moving families following what they understood as binding legal commitments.

Monteiro argues the legislative debate has ignored this context. “We have followed the legislative process very closely, and it is evident that many fail to recognise that the Golden Visa programme has been a crucial driver of Portugal’s economic growth.”

The brief argues that investors enrolled their children in Portuguese schools, expecting citizenship acquisition before their children reached adulthood.

Under the new timeline, a child aged four today would turn 19 before parental naturalization could trigger derivative nationality rights, altering family planning following governmental representations.

Invoking Constitutional Court Precedents

The submission cites Constitutional Court Acórdão 195/2017, which struck down a civil service retirement provision that made pension rights depend on when administrators processed applications rather than when applicants filed.

That decision found that making citizens’ legal status contingent on administrative timing violated both legal certainty and the prohibition on arbitrariness.

Court jurisprudence establishes three requirements for legitimate expectation protection: government behavior creating continuity expectations, legitimate and well-founded expectations, and life plans relying on that continuity.

The brief argues all three exist here, noting Portugal’s legislative trajectory from 1981 through 2024 consistently reduced rather than increased naturalization barriers.

The document argues Portugal’s decades-long regulatory consistency created “legitimate expectations, justified and founded on good reasons” that merit constitutional protection against abrupt reversal.

Three Possible Court Determinations

Portuguese Constitutional Court preventive review can produce three results. Judges may declare challenged provisions unconstitutional, requiring parliamentary amendments before promulgation.

The court could uphold the amendments entirely, allowing the presidential signature. Constitutional review occasionally results in findings that prompt legislative modification without formal unconstitutionality declarations.

The brief requests specific relief: unconstitutionality declarations for Articles 7(1) and 7(2)’s absence of transitional protections and Article 5’s repeal of residence-counting provisions. Alternatively, petitioners argue the court could find the entire decree disproportionately restricts fundamental rights under Article 26(1).

If the court rules provisions unconstitutional, Parliament must amend or abandon them before President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa can promulgate. Should judges uphold the amendments, the President gains the authority to sign the law for publication in the official gazette.

Court Decision Expected December 15

Portugal’s Constitutional Court has 25 days from formal submission to issue its preventive review ruling. The Socialist Party filed its request on November 19, placing the court’s decision on December 15, 2025.

The nationality amendments remain suspended throughout the review process and cannot enter into force until judges issue their determination. The Socialist Party triggered the preventive review using a parliamentary mechanism that the court used only twice since its 1983 founding, bypassing presidential action entirely.

PS holds 58 of 230 Assembly seats but needs only 46 signatures under organic constitutional provisions granting one-fifth of deputies the power to request a preventive assessment.

Constitutional Court President José João Abrantes received the amicus curiae brief bearing the marking “urgent” at the court’s Rua de “O Século” address in Lisbon.

Portuguese Constitutional Court practice, citing Acórdãos 247/2021, 413/2014, and 187/2013, shows the court has accepted and considered similar briefs from interested parties in previous cases despite no express statutory authorization for such submissions in preventive review proceedings.