Q. Why is this decision important for residency and investment visa applicants?
A: The decision directly impacts individuals applying for Portuguese nationality, including those using investment-based and entrepreneurial routes.
By rejecting topics of the new Law that introduced uncertainty, vague criteria or retrospective disadvantages, the Court reinforced Portugal’s commitment to predictable and fair legal processes. This is particularly relevant for international investors and entrepreneurs making long-term decisions.
Q: What does “protection of legitimate expectations” mean in practice?
A: It means that applicants who submit nationality requests in good faith, and in compliance with the law in force at the time of application, cannot later be disadvantaged by administrative delays or retroactive rule changes.
The Court ruled that tying nationality eligibility to the date of residence authorisation, rather than the date of application, violated this principle.
Q: How does this affect Golden Visa applicants?
A: For Golden Visa applicants advised by Portugal Homes, the ruling provides reassurance that the legal framework must respect application timelines and reasonable expectations.
While the decision does not change Golden Visa rules directly, it strengthens the broader legal environment in which residency and nationality pathways operate, reinforcing predictability for investors.
Q: Does the ruling affect D2 Entrepreneur Visa holders?
A: Yes, indirectly. D2 visa holders often follow a long-term pathway from residency to nationality.
The Court’s decision confirms that eligibility criteria cannot be altered retrospectively in a way that penalises applicants for administrative timing issues. This provides greater legal confidence for entrepreneurs building businesses and residency histories in Portugal.
Q. Were criminal sanctions linked to nationality rejected?
A: Yes. The Court ruled unconstitutional:
Automatic restrictions on nationality for individuals convicted of crimes with prison sentences over two years
The loss of nationality as an accessory criminal penalty under amendments to the Penal Code
The judges found these measures disproportionate and incompatible with constitutional safeguards.
Q. What other provisions of the law were struck down?
A. The Court also rejected provisions that:
Relied on undefined concepts such as “manifest fraud”
Allowed cancellation of nationality based on unspecified behaviours allegedly contrary to national values
In both cases, the lack of legal clarity was found to violate constitutional requirements.
Q. What happens next with the Nationality Law?
A. Following the ruling, the proposed legislation returns to the President of the Republic, who will decide whether to promulgate or veto the law.
It is widely expected that the Government will need to revise the rejected provisions to bring them into line with the Constitutional Court’s guidance.
.jpg&w=3840&q=75)