Malta’s golden passport scheme, allowing foreigners to purchase EU citizenship for an investment starting at €690,000, was deemed unlawful by the EU’s top court. The European Commission initiated legal proceedings several years ago, asserting the scheme violated Malta’s obligations under EU law. This program enabled individuals to gain Maltese citizenship, thereby granting them the right to work throughout the EU without any familial connections to Malta. The EU Court of Justice supported the Commission’s stance, stating that the scheme facilitated the commercialization of national status, undermining the fundamental principles of EU citizenship as established in its treaties.
The court’s ruling highlighted that the scheme’s financial requirements overshadowed the essential criteria of actual residency in Malta. It concluded that Malta’s operation of this golden passport scheme constituted a failure to honor its obligations under EU treaties, which are intended to maintain integrity within the Union. Consequently, Malta was ordered to bear the costs associated with the case, reinforcing the EU’s commitment to uphold citizenship standards that are rooted in genuine ties to member states.
This ruling contrasted with a non-binding opinion issued by Advocate General Anthony Collins in the previous year, which argued that member states retain the autonomy to determine their own citizenship policies. Collins suggested that concerns over the scheme’s impact on EU integrity were unwarranted, asserting that it was within each country’s rights to establish citizenship criteria. However, EU Court judges are not mandated to adhere to Advocate General recommendations, even though they often do. The court’s decisive action against Malta underscores the unity in enforcing common standards for EU citizenship and the sovereignty of individual nations in the matter.
As Malta finds itself isolated with its golden passport scheme, it’s important to note that both Cyprus and Bulgaria have previously dismantled similar programs in recent years. Other EU nations have also faced scrutiny regarding their “golden visa” initiatives, which offer residence permits in exchange for substantial investments. Portugal recently amended its golden visa program, eliminating a requirement for real estate investment to curb speculative trends, while the Netherlands and Spain have announced intentions to abolish similar schemes in the near term.
These citizenship-by-investment and golden visa initiatives have raised significant concerns related to security and potential money laundering, especially in the context of geopolitical tensions like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The pursuit of EU citizenship or residence through financial means has been criticized as a loophole that could allow sanctioned wealthy individuals to bypass restrictions, drawing attention from EU lawmakers. In response, members of the European Parliament have advocated for tighter regulations surrounding golden visas, calling for an outright ban on citizenship acquired through investment due to ethical and economic implications.
The situation remains dynamic, as reactions and developments from Malta following the ruling are awaited. The court ruling not only impacts Malta but also sets a precedent for other EU member states, reaffirming the importance of meaningful residency and ties when it comes to citizenship. This decision is likely to prompt further discussions about the future of citizenship policies within the EU and the broader implications for human rights, integrity, and the essence of European citizenship.
