Portugal’s revised Nationality Law, signed by President António José Seguro on May 3 and in force since May 19, doubles the naturalization timeline for most foreign nationals from 5 to 10 years. EU citizens and nationals of Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP) member states are now subject to a seven-year requirement.
One provision hits golden visa holders particularly hard: the residency clock now starts when the Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum (AIMA) issues a residence permit, not when an applicant submits their request, potentially adding 12 to 24 months to the timeline and bringing the total to 11 or 12 years.
The law offers no formal transitional regime for investors whose applications were already pending at the time of passage. Investors who have not filed a nationality application by May 18, 2026, are not protected under the transitional rule.
The new timelines apply only to naturalization, but the absence of any transitional protection has pushed over 500 golden visa investors toward collective legal action.
The Golden Visa Lawsuit Taking Shape
The group, predominantly American but representing multiple nationalities, reportedly plans to register as a formal association. Several law firms are already involved, though most are advising clients to wait for implementing regulations before filing.
Tiago Gali Macedo of Next Lawyers, who is aggregating clients for a joint petition, points to a specific contradiction at the heart of the case. The state opened the program on specific terms, collected fees, and then sat on the files for two or three years. To now exclude that waiting period from the naturalization count, he argues, turns the state’s own administrative backlog into a penalty for the investors who bore it.
He remains cautious about what a win looks like: “The most likely result is financial compensation from the State, not a court-imposed transitional regime.” The latter, he explains, would require legislative, not legal, action.
Sara Sousa Rebolo of Prime Legal puts the legal question more broadly: whether the amendments can lawfully apply to investors who entered under a specific legal framework, made substantial commitments, and then faced years of delays outside their control.
The principles likely to govern the case, she says, include legal certainty, legitimate expectations, proportionality, and potential state liability for excessive administrative delay.
Investors Should Brace for a Long Legal Battle
Both lawyers measure the lawsuit’s potential timeline in years. Gali Macedo puts it at three to five years for full doctrinal closure, including appeals.
Rebolo notes that an initial Portuguese court decision could take 2 to 3 years, longer if constitutional questions arise or the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gets involved.
She also suggests the most practical near-term outcome may not come from a ruling at all.
Litigation can generate pressure for political or legislative clarification, she says, “and that could happen sooner than a final court judgment,” explaining that a grandfathering provision, a transitional regime, or compensation for delays are more realistic outcomes than a full reversal of the law.
Both lawyers see it as unlikely the case could reach an EU court. Gali Macedo considers it unlikely, noting that “most administrative judges in Portugal will resolve the case on Portuguese constitutional grounds before reaching for the CJEU.”
Rebolo agrees that the domestic courts and ICSID represent the primary battleground, but does not rule out a referral if EU law questions of proportionality or the relationship between national and EU citizenship arise.
The European Court of Human Rights, she adds, could become relevant once domestic remedies are exhausted.
The Government’s Position
Portugal’s Minister of the Presidency, António Leitão Amaro, argued in late May that investors had been misled by consultants who sold the golden visa as a guaranteed route to a Portuguese passport. Lawyers representing affected investors reportedly rejected that framing, pointing to Leitão Amaro’s own October 2025 commitment to parliament that AIMA would clear all outstanding golden visa applications by 2026, generating around €85 million in revenue. That has not happened.
President Seguro, for his part, noted upon signing the law that pending applications should not be affected by the legislative changes, and that administrative delays attributable to the state should not undermine the legally established naturalization timelines.
His remarks carry no binding force, but lawyers say they may shape how courts interpret the law.
What Investors Are Doing in the Meantime
Applications reportedly fell 49% year-on-year in April. Rebolo cautions against reading too much into that figure alone, citing factors such as the earlier elimination of the real estate investment option, AIMA’s persistent processing backlog, and the rush by investors to lock in the previous framework before the law changed.
Official statistics also measure approvals rather than applications, she notes, creating a meaningful lag in the data.
Among her clients, interest in the cultural donation route has grown. A €200,000 donation, paired with €300,000 invested freely in the market, can in many scenarios produce comparable or better outcomes than a €500,000 fund commitment with limited liquidity over seven or eight years.
Investors, she observes, are increasingly weighing liquidity, opportunity cost, and exit flexibility alongside the headline investment figure.
Gali Macedo notes that for investors focused on European residency rather than citizenship, the five-year permanent residency option remains attractive and unaffected by the new law.
Rebolo notes that once investors understand what they retain under permanent residency, Portugal still compares well with its European peers. So while the legal question remains open, she doesn’t anticipate the program losing its fundamental appeal anytime soon.
