A consortium of nine Portuguese law firms has filed a formal complaint with Portugal’s Ombudsman, the Provedoria de Justiça, on behalf of 1,260 Golden Visa clients affected by the country’s nationality law overhaul and AIMA processing delays. The complaint asks the Ombudsman to intervene over both the new citizenship rules and what the firms describe as years of administrative failure at the Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum.
Complaint over nationality law and AIMA delays
The complaint was filed by a consortium including RME Legal, Liberty Legal, Fieldfisher Portugal, Paxlegal, LexGO Legal and Finance, Maria Margarida Torres, AVCO Legal, AGPC, and BRF Legal.
The firms argue that Golden Visa applicants organized their lives around a legal framework promoted by Portugal, paid fees, complied with investment requirements, and then faced delays of three, four, or five years before receiving residence permits or being able to move forward.
The complaint is part of a wider legal campaign. It follows an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Constitutional Court in December 2025 and runs alongside a collective lawsuit against the Portuguese state.
New nationality law and lack of broad transition protection
Portugal’s new nationality law entered into force on May 19. It doubled the standard naturalization timeline from five to ten years for most foreign nationals.
Citizens of the European Union and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries now face a seven-year requirement.
For Golden Visa holders, the central issue is the absence of a broad transitional regime. Article 7.2 protects nationality applications filed on or before May 18, 2026. However, investors who had not yet reached the filing stage are not protected, even where the delay resulted from AIMA not issuing residence permits in time.
The residency clock now starts when AIMA issues the permit, not when the Golden Visa application is lodged.
The firms argue this penalizes applicants for administrative delays and legal changes they did not control.
What the Ombudsman can do
The Provedor de Justiça is an independent constitutional body that defends Portuguese and foreign citizens against unlawful or unfair acts by public administration.
The Ombudsman can:
- Investigate complaints;
- Request documents;
- Inspect public bodies without notice;
- Issue recommendations to correct injustices;
- Ask the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality or legality of a legal norm.
The Ombudsman cannot issue binding decisions.
For the consortium, the Ombudsman’s power to request Constitutional Court review is a key objective.
Legal options under consideration
The complaint is one part of a broader challenge to Portugal’s handling of Golden Visa investors after the nationality law change.
The consortium has identified several possible avenues, including:
- State liability claims for legislative damage;
- Constitutionality challenges in national courts;
- Recourse to the European Court of Human Rights after domestic remedies are exhausted.
The firms say they expect to meet directly with the Ombudsman. It remains unclear whether the complaint will lead to a recommendation, a constitutional referral, or no action.
Government response and pending rules
Portugal’s government has shown little sign of reversing course.
Minister of the Presidency António Leitão Amaro recently accused investment migration consultants of deceiving clients into expecting nationality quickly. The consortium rejected that framing, arguing that the state itself promoted and profited from the Golden Visa program for more than a decade.
The government has 90 days from the May 19 publication date to update the implementing regulation, the Regulamento da Nacionalidade Portuguesa.
AIMA and the Institute of Registries and Notaries have not yet published procedural guidance.
Until that guidance is issued, the practical position of thousands of pending applicants remains uncertain. The law firms are asking the Ombudsman to address that uncertainty and seek transitional protection for applicants who acted under the previous framework.
Source article: www.imidaily.com
