Portugal’s Hard Turn: The End of an Open Era for Nationality Law

For a decade, Portugal maintained one of Europe’s most accessible and outward-looking nationality regimes. Starting in the mid-2010s, the country embraced a legal philosophy designed to reconnect with diasporas, welcome new residents, and correct historical injustices. This approach created multiple pathways to citizenship: for grandchildren of Portuguese emigrants, descendants of Sephardic Jews, long-term residents, and even children born in Portugal to parents with only modest residence histories.

That legal landscape is now dramatically shifting. In late October 2025, the Portuguese Parliament approved the most significant tightening of the nationality law in nearly two decades, in a definitive turning point. Yet, the story is complicated. As of early December 2025, the entire law stands formally suspended, pending a request for preventive constitutional review. This high-stakes legal limbo, driven by concerns over core constitutional principles, is central to understanding the law’s evolution and what may lie ahead.

To grasp the magnitude of the current moment, tracing Portugal’s path to this crossroads is essential.

 

A Legal Framework Shaped by Openness (2013–2020)

The modern nationality law originated with Law 37/81, adopted shortly after the democratic transition. While frequently amended over the years, the dominant direction from roughly 2013 to 2020 clearly emphasized inclusion.

One major catalyst was the 2015 creation of a special pathway for descendants of Portuguese Sephardic Jews, conceived as a symbolic act of historical reparation to restore centuries-severed ties. This open era also actively recognized Portugal’s vast emigrant diaspora, simplifying citizenship for grandchildren of Portuguese nationals. Simultaneously, naturalization through residency became progressively easier, establishing a consolidated five-year requirement. Given these loosened birthright citizenship rules (jus soli), Portugal stood out in Europe: a nation leaning toward openness while much of the continent trended toward restriction.

 

The First Signs of Reversal: The 2024 Adjustment

The political mood began to sour by 2022–2023, fueled by administrative overload and public scrutiny of the Sephardic regime. In March 2024, Parliament passed Organic Law 1/2024, which, while introducing stricter scrutiny, also contained a crucial administrative correction. Facing lengthy bureaucratic delays at the immigration service (AIMA/SEF), the law allowed the nationality clock for residents to begin at the moment of the residence-permit application, rather than the later date the card was issued. This was a targeted attempt to shield long-term residents from state dysfunction.

That specific administrative protection would soon become one of the most immediate targets of the 2025 tightening.

 

The 2025 Reform: The Hardest Turn in Decades

The full proposal, approved by Parliament on 28 October 2025, represents a categorical shift from accessibility to selective, conditional belonging.

A before and after comparison:

• Residence Requirements: Previously 5 years for everyone; proposed rules raise the threshold to 7 years for EU/CPLP nationals and 10 years for others.
• Residence Clock Start: Formerly counted from the residence-permit application; under the proposal, it only begins when the residence card is issued.
• Integration Requirements: The liberal framework required only A2 language proof; the new system adds a civic/cultural exam.
• Birthright Citizenship: Once accessible with one year of parental residence; now restricted to parents with five years of residence.
• Loss of Nationality: Previously highly protected; the proposal introduces revocation for serious crimes.
• Sephardic Route: Once open (with scrutiny); now definitively closed.

The residence clock reversal is perhaps the clearest political statement. By reverting to counting only from the issue date of the residence title, the law fully negates the administrative protection introduced in 2024, squarely placing the burden of government processing delays back onto the applicant.

 

The Legal Limbo and the Constitutional Challenge

Because the new law has not been promulgated, the Socialist Party (PS), the main opposition, formally invoked a rare constitutional safeguard following parliamentary approval: a request for preventive constitutional review by the Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional — TC). This immediately suspends the law’s entry into force until the Court issues its ruling.

The challenge targets several core constitutional pillars:

Legal Certainty and Legitimate Expectations

The PS argues the law violates the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations (Art. 2 of the Constitution).

Residence Clock Retroactivity: The reversal of the “date of application” rule is the central argument. Critics contend that penalizing residents for state-caused administrative backlogs (AIMA/SEF delays) constitutes an unforeseen retroactive penalty, eroding the stability of the legal framework residents had relied upon.

Absence of Transitional Rules: Applying the new 7 or 10-year threshold to individuals who moved to Portugal expecting a 5-year path is deemed a disproportionate infringement on established rights.

Principle of Equality and Universality of Citizenship

The most structurally controversial measure is the provision introducing the possibility of loss of nationality for naturalized citizens convicted of serious crimes (e.g., prison sentences of four years or more).

Two Classes of Citizens: This penalty applies only to naturalized citizens who hold a second nationality, while Portuguese citizens of origin are exempt. Opponents argue this creates an unconstitutional disparity, violating the principle of equality (Art. 13) and the universality of citizenship by establishing “first- and second-class” nationals. The provision is also challenged as a potential perpetual penalty, which the Constitution prohibits.

 

III. Proportionality and Clarity

Other provisions are scrutinized for excessive restriction and ambiguity.

Vague Opposition Clause: A new clause permitting the state to oppose nationality based on behaviors deemed to demonstrate “rejection of the national community” is challenged as overly indeterminate. Critics argue such broad, subjective language could infringe upon fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression and the right to effective judicial protection, as it allows for arbitrary denial criteria.

Disproportionate Criminal Threshold: The reduction of the disqualifying criminal threshold (from three years’ imprisonment to two) is argued to be an excessive restriction on the fundamental right to nationality.

The Constitutional Court now has a maximum of 25 days to issue its decision. If the Court strikes down any provision as unconstitutional, Parliament must amend the law or abandon it. If upheld, the law proceeds to the President for promulgation.

 

Why This Turning Point Matters

Portugal’s shift represents a deeper societal choice. For years, the country was one of the few in Europe that treated long-term residence as the primary path to belonging. The 2025 reform speaks in a different register, framing nationality as something to be earned over extended time and proven through demonstrable integration. This aligns Portugal with global trends favoring conditional belonging and stricter vetting.

But the shift raises important questions. Will a ten-year residence threshold create an underclass of long-term residents who contribute to Portuguese society without ever accessing its full civic rights? Will integration tests be equitable? And does closing historical pathways challenge Portugal’s self-image as a country with a global history?

 

Looking Ahead

Portugal is moving from an expansionist, diaspora-driven approach to one grounded in conditional belonging. The outcome of the constitutional review is not merely procedural; it will define the limits of the State’s power to rewrite the rules of membership after individuals have already established their lives under the old framework. The nationality law is poised for the most significant identity recalibration since its inception four decades ago.

 

Disclaimer

This publication or document contains general information and is not intended to be comprehensive nor to provide legal or tax advice or services. It should not be acted upon, relied upon, or used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect you or your business. Professional legal advice should be requested for specific cases. We do not undertake any continuing obligation to advise on future legal amendments or of the impact on the conclusions herein. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The contents of this publication or document may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the express consent of GFDL Advogados.