Portugal’s constitutional court ruling: an update for Golden Visa investors

On 15 December, Portugal’s Constitutional Court issued its ruling on seven specific clauses of the proposed amendments to the nationality law. The referral was made by the Socialist Party, and the Court’s decisions on each clause were largely unanimous.

For investors, this ruling provides clarity on certain constitutional limits. It does not resolve the practical questions that continue to affect families who invested in good faith and have spent years waiting within the system.

Important context

The Constitutional Court was not asked to rule on the proposed extension of the naturalization period from five to ten years. That issue remains unresolved at a political level and will be determined by Parliament, not the Court.

Provisions declared unconstitutional

The Court struck down several measures, including automatic exclusion from naturalization based solely on criminal records, indeterminate grounds for opposing the acquisition of nationality, loss of nationality due to fraud committed by third parties, retroactive application of new nationality requirements, and loss of nationality under the newly introduced Article 69(d).

These findings align with principles of legal certainty, proportionality, and fundamental rights, and were broadly expected within the legal community.

Provisions declared constitutional

The Court upheld the constitutionality of changes to how legal residence periods are calculated. It also confirmed that there is no constitutional obligation to provide a transitional regime for applicants already in process.

This aspect of the ruling has caused concern among legal practitioners. In its reasoning, the Court relied on the government’s position that AIMA has made sufficient progress in addressing administrative backlogs and that earlier protective measures for long-waiting applicants are no longer justified.

In reality, many Golden Visa investors are still waiting years for biometrics appointments or residence cards, with some only scheduled well into 2026.

What this means in practice

From the Court’s perspective, there is no constitutional requirement to count the application submission date as the start of legal residence for nationality purposes. Nor is there a constitutional obligation to introduce a transitional regime for those already in the system.

This creates a disconnect between legal theory and lived experience. Many investors complied fully with the law, invested capital, and structured family plans around a five-year citizenship horizon. Administrative delays outside their control now place those expectations in question.

What happens next

The ruling has been sent back to the President of the Republic, who is constitutionally obliged to veto the law in its current form. The legislation now returns to Parliament, which has a limited period to debate and amend the relevant provisions.

This next phase is political rather than judicial. Legal representatives across the sector, including those we work with, continue to lobby for outcomes that reflect fairness and proportionality.

A personal perspective

Unfortunately, we still do not have answers to the most pressing questions. Will existing investors be protected. Will time lost waiting for appointments, in some cases more than four years, be credited. What happens to children who are now approaching independence after years of administrative delay.

This uncertainty is not theoretical for me. I live in Portugal and have complied with every requirement placed upon me. Yet AIMA has been unable to issue my renewal residence card for eighteen months. In practical terms, that leaves me in legal limbo despite long-standing ties to the country.

This is not the first prolonged chapter in the history of Portugal’s Golden Visa and immigration framework, and it is unlikely to be the last. The constitutional process may be partially complete, but the political outcome remains unresolved.

Get in touch to find out more.