Breaking News! European Court Strikes Down Malta’s “Golden Passport” Program

On April 29, 2025, the European Court of Justice issued a ruling in the case of Malta's investor citizenship program, also known as the "golden passport" scheme, finding it in violation of EU law. This judgment has drawn significant attention as it highlights Malta's failure to comply with the obligations set forth in Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 4.3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

The Court criticized Malta for establishing a "transactional naturalization procedure" that grants citizenship in exchange for predetermined payments or investments, effectively commercializing EU citizenship. This practice seriously undermines the essence of EU citizenship and contravenes relevant legal principles.

European Court of Justice's Judgment Reasons

(1) Violation of the Essence of EU Citizenship

EU citizenship is a core element of EU law, based on a special relationship of solidarity and loyalty between EU Member States and their nationals. Malta's "golden passport" scheme grants citizenship through a transaction - based procedure, exchanging predetermined payments or investments for citizenship. This, in effect, commercializes EU citizenship and contravenes the fundamental principles upon which EU citizenship is founded.

(2) Breach of EU Legal Principles

Pursuant to Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, Member States must exercise their power to grant citizenship in accordance with EU law and adhere to the principles of sincere cooperation and mutual trust. By granting citizenship via the "golden passport" scheme, Malta has weakened the trust between Member States. Other Member States cannot be assured that Malta's conferment of citizenship meets the solidarity and loyalty requirements of EU citizenship. Thus, Malta's actions constitute a violation of EU legal principles.

CURIA - Documents

Impact and Subsequent Actions

(1) Direct Requirements for Malta

The European Court of Justice's ruling requires Malta to bear all legal costs related to the litigation.

(2) Potential Impact on Other Member States and the EU

This judgment serves as a warning to other EU member states. Any attempts to grant citizenship through similar transaction - based schemes in order to obtain EU citizenship may face review and sanctions from the European Court of Justice. The ruling helps to maintain the seriousness and unity of EU citizenship and ensures the EU's internal mechanisms based on trust and cooperation.

（3）Reactions from Different Parties

• The scheme's introducer, former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, views the ruling as a “political decision”. He also notes that the US has similar schemes, implying that Malta's program could continue after adjustments.

• David Casa, a member of Malta's Nationalist Party, believes the ruling confirms his party's previous opposition to the scheme. He criticizes the Labour government for damaging the country's reputation for its own benefit.

• Maltese Prime Minister Robert Abela has not yet responded to the ruling.

Impact on Existing and Potential Applicants

The European Court of Justice's ruling has cast uncertainty over the future of Malta's CBI program for existing applicants and those considering applying. The full implications are not yet clear, and all affected parties are advised to await further guidance from Maltese authorities.

Globevisa's Response Strategies:

• Suspension of Pending Applications

  Given the current situation, to avoid unnecessary risks or losses caused by policy changes, Globevisa Group has temporarily paused the processing of all ongoing applications. This suspension will remain in effect until official guidelines are released, allowing adjustments in line with the new policies.

• Suspension of New Contracts

  Until further clarification is provided, Globevisa Group will not accept new clients. This precaution aims to ensure that clients fully understand the possible impact of policy changes and avoid making misinformed decisions due to information gaps.