For thousands of people, Portuguese nationality represents far more than just a document. It is a legal bond with a country, with implications for their personal, family and professional lives, international mobility and the way in which they plan their future.
The changes to the rules governing access to Portuguese nationality have altered the conditions under which many individuals expected to acquire this legal status. When such changes coincide with prolonged delays in administrative procedures, an unavoidable question arises: who should bear the consequences of a delay that is not attributable to the individual, but rather to the State itself?
When the Law Changes, Timing Matters too.
Organic Law No. 1/2026 of 18 May amended the Portuguese nationality framework, making the requirements for access to naturalisation more stringent. In particular, it increased the minimum periods of legal residence required, from five years counted from the submission of the residence application to ten years counted from the issuance of the residence permit for foreign nationals, and seven years for citizens of European Union Member States or nationals of Portuguese-speaking countries (CPLP).
The legislator may redefine the criteria for acquiring nationality, if it acts within constitutional limits. However, this power does not dispense with the need to consider the consequences of such changes for those who had already embarked on a process with the ultimate aim of acquiring Portuguese nationality.
It is important to distinguish between different situations: not all delays prevent access to nationality, nor do all legitimate expectations amount to acquired rights. Nevertheless, where it can be demonstrated that delays on the part of the Administration affected an individual’s ability to meet the legal requirements within the relevant timeframe, that circumstance deserves to be given due consideration from a legal perspective.
The principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, equality and proportionality justify a careful assessment of cases in which the actions of the State may have prevented individuals from exercising a legal entitlement in a timely manner.
The challenge lies in finding solutions that respect the legislator’s powers while considering specific situations in which individuals had no control over the delays affecting their path towards acquiring nationality.
The State may change the law, but it also has a duty to ensure that its Administration is efficient, predictable and respectful of citizens’ rights. This is not about guaranteeing the indiscriminate application of the previous rules, nor about recognising an automatic right to nationality. It is about ensuring that the circumstances of each case are duly assessed and that the consequences of administrative inefficiency are not simply passed on to the individual.
Nationality is a matter of sovereignty. Good administration is a requirement of the rule of law. Neither should be used to undermine the importance of the other.
Citizens cannot demand that the law remain unchanged, but they are entitled to expect the State to fulfil its obligations and make decisions within a reasonable timeframe. When this does not happen, the effects of such delays should not be disregarded when new rules are applied.
A State governed by the rule of law is measured not only by its ability to enact new legislation, but also by the responsibility with which it administers the procedures required to implement it.
The changes to the rules governing access to Portuguese nationality have altered the conditions under which many individuals expected to acquire this legal status. When such changes coincide with prolonged delays in administrative procedures, an unavoidable question arises: who should bear the consequences of a delay that is not attributable to the individual, but rather to the State itself?
When the Law Changes, Timing Matters too.
Organic Law No. 1/2026 of 18 May amended the Portuguese nationality framework, making the requirements for access to naturalisation more stringent. In particular, it increased the minimum periods of legal residence required, from five years counted from the submission of the residence application to ten years counted from the issuance of the residence permit for foreign nationals, and seven years for citizens of European Union Member States or nationals of Portuguese-speaking countries (CPLP).
The legislator may redefine the criteria for acquiring nationality, if it acts within constitutional limits. However, this power does not dispense with the need to consider the consequences of such changes for those who had already embarked on a process with the ultimate aim of acquiring Portuguese nationality.
It is important to distinguish between different situations: not all delays prevent access to nationality, nor do all legitimate expectations amount to acquired rights. Nevertheless, where it can be demonstrated that delays on the part of the Administration affected an individual’s ability to meet the legal requirements within the relevant timeframe, that circumstance deserves to be given due consideration from a legal perspective.
The principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, equality and proportionality justify a careful assessment of cases in which the actions of the State may have prevented individuals from exercising a legal entitlement in a timely manner.
The challenge lies in finding solutions that respect the legislator’s powers while considering specific situations in which individuals had no control over the delays affecting their path towards acquiring nationality.
The State may change the law, but it also has a duty to ensure that its Administration is efficient, predictable and respectful of citizens’ rights. This is not about guaranteeing the indiscriminate application of the previous rules, nor about recognising an automatic right to nationality. It is about ensuring that the circumstances of each case are duly assessed and that the consequences of administrative inefficiency are not simply passed on to the individual.
Nationality is a matter of sovereignty. Good administration is a requirement of the rule of law. Neither should be used to undermine the importance of the other.
Citizens cannot demand that the law remain unchanged, but they are entitled to expect the State to fulfil its obligations and make decisions within a reasonable timeframe. When this does not happen, the effects of such delays should not be disregarded when new rules are applied.
A State governed by the rule of law is measured not only by its ability to enact new legislation, but also by the responsibility with which it administers the procedures required to implement it.
.
