Citizenship and Residence by Investment

Table Of Contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Figures
• Tables
• Abstract
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• Table of Cases
• Introduction
• 0.1 State of the Art
• 0.2 Research Problem
• 0.3 Research Question
• 0.4 Methodology
• Chapter 1: What is Residence and Citizenship by Investment?
• 1.1 Description of the Two Case Studies
• 1.2 The case of Portugal (Residence by Investment)
• 1.2.1 The Context of the Drafting of the Law That Created the Portuguese Golden Visa
• 1.2.2 The Options of Investment
• 1.2.3 The Way to Citizenship: Naturalisation When in Possession of a Golden Visa
• 1.2.4 The National Debate on the Golden Visas
• 1.2.5 The Changes from Decreto Lei n. 14/2021
• 1.2.6 The War in Ukraine and Russian-Portuguese
• 1.2.7 The (Near) End of the Scheme in 2023: Turbulence and Uncertainty for Portugal’s Golden Visa Programme
• 1.2.8 Conclusion: Residence by Investment in Portugal
• 1.3 The Case of Malta (Citizenship by Investment)
• 1.3.1 Not Investment but Exceptional Service: The Second Version of the Scheme and its Changes in 2020 (2020–2024)
• 1.3.2 General Immigration Policies in Malta
• 1.3.3 The Legal System in Malta and Citizenship Law
• 1.3.4 General Rules on Naturalisation in Malta
• 1.3.5 The First Version of the Scheme: From its Inception to its Changes – Individual Investor Programme (2013–2019)
• 1.3.6 Discussion of the Scheme in the Literature
• 1.3.7 National Case Law Related to the IPP
• 1.3.8 Welcoming and Non-Welcoming: Comparing Policy for Asylum Seekers and Investors
• 1.3.9 The National Environment Against/In Favour of the Citizenship by Investment Scheme
• 1.3.10 Conclusion: Maltese Citizenship by Investment
• 1.4 Conclusion of Chapter 1
• Chapter 2: EU Citizenship & EU Competence: The Reactions from European Institutions
• 2.1 The Concept of Citizenship
• 2.2 The Phenomenon of Dual Citizenship
• 2.3 Citizenship of the European Union
• 2.4 The Principle of Conferral and the Allocation of Powers Between the EU and its Member States
• 2.5 Competence on Matters of Naturalisation
• 2.5.1 Is the EU Competent for Naturalisation Matters? Article 5 (1) TEU
• 2.6 Competence in Matters of Immigration
• 2.7 Accessing the Legality of RBI and CBI by Analysing the European Court of Justice’s Decisions on Citizenship
• 2.7.1 The Principle of Sincere Cooperation
• 2.7.2 The Court of Justice of the European Union
• 2.8 Previous Allegations on Matters of EU Law and Incompatibility with EU Citizenship
• 2.8.1 Prohibition of Additional Conditions for Recognition of Naturalisation by Other Member States and Due Regard to EU Law (Micheletti)
• 2.8.2 Mass Naturalisation (Rottmann)
• 2.8.3 Prior Consultation on the Naturalisation of a Large, Disproportionate Number of Non-EU-Citizens (Rottmann)
• 2.8.4 Tjebbes and the Court of Justice Challenging Member State Sovereignty in Nationality Law (M. G. Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken)
• 2.8.5 Citizenship of the Union and the Proportionality Principle in Revocation of Nationality (JY v Wiener Landesregierung)
• 2.8.6 Notes on the Case Law of the European Court of Justice: From Micheletti to JY
• 2.9 Current Allegations on Matters of EU Law and Incompatibility of Naturalisation by Investment (CBI)
• 2.9.1 The Principle of Sincere Cooperation and Mass Naturalisation (Rottmann)
• 2.9.2 The Principle of Sincere Cooperation and Previous Consultation with Other Member States and the Commission on Naturalisation of a Large, Disproportionate Number of Non-EU Citizens (Rottmann)
• 2.9.3 The Rottmann Case and the Principle of Proportionality in Deprivation of Citizenship
• 2.9.4 The Principle of Sincere Cooperation and the Argument of Free Riders (Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier contra Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS)
• 2.10 Previous Allegation of Violation of EU Law in Matters of Residence Permits for Third-Country Nationals
• 2.10.1 Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP) Mobility Agreement With EU Law
• 2.11 Current Allegations on Matters of EU Law and Incompatibility of Residence by Investment (RBI)
• 2.11.1 Residence by Investment and Compatibility with the Long-Term Directive
• 2.12 Concerns of European Institutions: Money Laundering, Corruption, Lack of Transparency, and Due Diligence
• 2.12.1 Protecting EU Citizenship: The Commission Referral of Malta to the European Court of Justice
• 2.12.2 The Commission Recommendations of 28 March 2022 and the Principle of Non-Discrimination
• 2.13 The Parliament Resolution on 2022 and the Future of Investment Migration in Europe
• Chapter 3: The Portuguese and Maltese Schemes Considering the Nottebohm Case and International Legal Considerations
• 3.1 What is the Genuine Link: The Nottebohm Case
• 3.1.1 Background and Circumstances of the Case
• 3.1.2 The Decision
• 3.1.3 The Dissenting Opinions
• 3.1.4 The Criticism of the Judgement
• 3.2 The Case’s Reception and Application
• 3.2.1 Nottebohm Dismissed: Flegenheimer Case
• 3.3 Nottebohm Partly Accepted: Iran–US Claims Tribunal & Mergé Case (United States v. Italy)
• 3.3.1. An Iran–United States Claims Tribunal
• 3.3.2. B Mergé Case (United States v. Italy)
• 3.4 The EU Application of the Case
• 3.5 Is the Genuine Link the Way Forward?
• 3.5.1 Olympic Citizenship
• 3.5.2 Descendants of Sephardi Jews in Portugal and Spain
• 3.5.3 Reparatory Citizenship in Germany
• 3.5.4 Ancestry Naturalisation in Ireland, Hungary and Italy
• 3.6 Limitations on States with Respect to Citizenship Law in International Law
• 3.6.1 Statelessness
• 3.6.2 Non-discrimination
• 3.6.3 Voluntary Acquisition of Nationality
• 3.7 Genuine Link is Guidance, Not a Rule
• 3.8 Political-Theoretical Considerations
• 3.9 Solutions: EU Regulation or Phase Out
• 3.10 Conclusion of the Chapter
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Appendices
• Appendix A – Portugal – Raw Data – Lei n. 56/2023, 6 October, 2023
• Appendix B – Malta – Raw Data – Subsidiary Legislation 188.06, Granting of Citizenship for Exceptional Services Regulations, 20th November 2020 – Legal Notice 437 of 2020
• Index