Portugal’s Constitutional Court recently deemed several amendments to the Nationality Law unconstitutional, marking a pivotal moment in the nation’s immigration policy. The contentious provisions aimed to intensify requirements for obtaining Portuguese citizenship, but these efforts have been halted following judicial scrutiny.
The Nationality Law, governed by Law No. 37/81, has evolved over decades through numerous revisions, with the most recent changes proposed on October 28, 2025. These amendments intended to extend the residency requirement for naturalization from five to ten years for most applicants, and from five to seven years for individuals from European Union or CPLP countries. Additionally, the residency period would have commenced at the issuance of the first residence card rather than the initial application date. Another significant change aimed to revoke nationality in cases involving serious criminal convictions.
The Socialist Party, Portugal’s third-largest parliamentary group, contested these amendments, arguing they violated constitutional standards of equality and proportionality in limiting fundamental rights. Upon review, the Constitutional Court found four provisions in violation of constitutional principles. Details of the ruling can be seen here.
Among the unconstitutional provisions was the proposed rule to automatically bar anyone convicted of a crime punishable by two years or more from acquiring Portuguese citizenship, which the court labeled as a “disproportionate restriction” on the right to citizenship. Similarly, a provision concerning fraudulent acquisition of nationality was struck down due to the lack of clear criteria distinguishing manifest fraud from other forms of fraudulent behavior. Changes to the timeframes affecting individuals with pending applications under existing legislation were also deemed unconstitutional, as these violated applicants’ legitimate expectations.
The court also nullified a provision that allowed for the cancellation of nationality for actions deemed antagonistic to the national community and its symbols, citing the absence of clear behavioral definitions that could trigger loss of nationality.
In light of the Constitutional Court’s decision, these amendments cannot be implemented as drafted. The existing nationality framework remains in place until a revised legal text is approved and enacted. This verdict underscores the intricate balance between legislative intent and constitutional rights in a nation grappling with its identity in an evolving European landscape.