Golden visa investors want the Constitutional Court to look at the nationality law, or they sue in September
A group of 1,260 golden visa investors has filed a collective complaint with Portugal's Ombudsman and wants the new nationality law sent to the Constitutional Court. If nothing moves, they go to court in September.
People who invested in Portugal counting on five years to a passport are now counting ten, and 1,260 of them have decided not to swallow the change quietly.
What are the golden visa investors asking for?
The group has filed a collective complaint with the Ombudsman’s Office and wants a meeting with the new Ombudsman, Luísa Neto, within weeks. The request has two legs. The first is that the Ombudsman refer the new nationality law to the Constitutional Court. The second is more practical: a transitional regime that counts the clock from the day the application was filed, rather than from the day the state got around to issuing the residence permit.
If there is no answer by September, the plan is to go to court, in an action lawyers say could gather around 2,000 investors. AGPC, one of the firms representing them, says the paperwork is ready to file.
Why does the new nationality law hit golden visa holders so hard?
Because it doubled the waiting time — from five to ten years of residence for non-EU nationals — and, more importantly, because it changed when the clock starts. It used to run from the residence application; now it runs from the day the permit is actually issued. For anyone who spent two, three or four years stuck in an AIMA queue, those years simply evaporate from the calculation.
The golden visa programme itself was left untouched: invest, get residency. What changed is the thing many investors were really buying, which was eventual citizenship, and that is where the fight is. We have already gone through how the deadlines work under the new nationality law, and the government still has not published the regulations that make it operational.
Are their chances any good?
Nobody knows, and it is fairer to say so. The Ombudsman can decline to take the case to the Constitutional Court, and the state can simply wait for the lawsuit. The investors’ argument is legitimate expectation: the rules changed mid-game for people already playing it. The counter-argument is that nobody has a vested right in a law that never changes. The complaint and its progress can be followed with the Ombudsman’s Office.
Image: Novo Liceu / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0)